Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [ Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second lime tomorrow.

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

ordered,
That the Committee on the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] have leave to visit and inspect the sites of the proposed works and areas affected by the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, agent or other representative.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Employment Training

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he will introduce to improve employment training.

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to increase the level of employment training; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I announced in November additional flexibilities to enable training and enterprise councils to increase the effectiveness of employment training. I am announcing today that an extra £120 million will be made available to training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise in Scotland to ensure that employment training can continue to play its full part in helping unemployed people back to work.

Mr. Thompson: That announcement does not compensate for the fact that since 1988 £1 billion has been taken out of the training bill. Is it not a national disgrace that quality training, which is one of the cornerstones of the improvements that we might expect to see in the British economy, has been greatly damaged by the fact that so much funding for training has been removed? Is the Secretary of State aware that we are going through a catastrophic time for training and that after the present crisis the British economy will be seriously damaged due to the lack of investment in training not just in the past year or two but for the past 10 years?

Mr. Howard: One thing is absolutely clear about these additional resources. In the debate on the autumn statement, the shadow Chancellor reaffirmed that training would not be one of the two immediate priorities for a Labour Government—so what we are devoting to employment training is at least £120 million more than the Labour party would make available.

Mr. Cryer: Can the Secretary of State explain how the sale of 51 skillcentres, accompanied by a gift from the Government of £70 million, has improved the availability of training in this country when the activity of the three insider dealers who bought most of the skillcentres has been concerned principally with sacking instructors, selling off freehold sites and selling the valuable machinery and equipment used by the skillcentres to train people? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain what value this audacious taxpayers rip-off is to the people who want employment training?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman persists in making entirely unfounded allegations about the sale of skillcentres. The skillcentres were making a substantial loss. It is clear that they can now provide training much more effectively in the private sector, and that is exactly what they are doing.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not find it bizarre to be accused by Labour Members of underfunding employment training when that and every other major training initiative introduced by the Government has been attacked and opposed by them from the beginning? Does he agree that it would be more appropriate for them to support employment training instead of trying to supplant our training schemes by calling for the reintroduction of a training levy on employers, bearing in mind how that failed to produce the goods in years gone by?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. Nothing remotely comparable with employment training was available when Labour Members were last in office. They have consistently opposed every training initiative that we have introduced, which makes their claim to be the guardians of training entirely laughable.

Mr. Madel: As there is a shortage of people trained in electronics and electronic engineering, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the training and enterprise councils to make training in that sector of industry a priority, especially as they now have welcome new money?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the essence of training and enterprise councils is that they should be able to tailor training programmes to local circumstances in order to equip local people with the skills that they need to fill local jobs. I am sure that, in carrying out that remit, the councils will bear in mind the needs of the sector to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the £120 million that he has announced is less than a third of the amount that he is cutting from the Department of Employment budget for next year alone? Will he guarantee to save the thousands of training places at risk, the training providers who are going out of business and the training programmes that are being closed? If he will not give that guarantee, are we not justified in saying that the Government, having created unemployment, are now abandoning the unemployed?

Mr. Howard: Why does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that his colleague the shadow Chancellor has made it plain that training is not one of the two priorities on which the Opposition would immediately increase spending if they were ever to form a Government? Until we get a commitment about that from the shadow Chancellor, Opposition complaints about funding are entirely unjustified.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the welcome improvement in training that he has worked out during his period of office is none the less deficient for those with special training needs, many of whose training schemes will be imperilled by the new system of organisation? Has he any word of comfort for those people?

Mr. Howard: I announced some months ago that for the first time those with disabilities would be included in the aim group, which has a high priority in employment training. Those with disabilities now have a higher priority in training than ever before.

Labour Statistics

Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of job losses in the period 1 June 1990 to 1 February 1991 in (a) the Yorkshire and Humberside region and (b) for the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): During the seven months June to December 1990, it is provisionally estimated that there were 8,000 confirmed redundancies in the Yorkshire and Humberside region and 62,500 in Great Britain. The estimates are based on the number of redundancies confirmed as having occurred following receipt of a notification under the Employment Protection Act 1975.

Mr. O'Brien: Those figures show that the Government's policy of high interest rates is crippling output and investment and creating unemployment throughout the country. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region over the past few months, bankruptcies have been increasing monthly. There have been more unemployment and more redundancies than ever before, all because of the Government's high interest rates and unified business rate policies. When will the Minister's colleague the Secretary of State create facilities to increase employment and not create further unemployment?

Mr. Forth: I am disappointed but not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should talk his region down. His region has been one of the more robust during this period of economic difficulty. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when he was elected to the House in 1983 there were 3,139 unemployed people in his constituency. The figure is now 2,261. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be grateful for the fact that his constituency has seen such a dramatic fall in unemployment since he was elected. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region, unemployment is down by nearly 100,000 since 1987.

Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of recent investment and productivity improvements, Yorkshire firms are in a much better position to take advantage of the economic upturn when it takes place than they were in the last recession 10 years ago? Does my hon. Friend not find it rather sickening that Opposition Members talk about unemployment only when it is going up and not when it is coming down?

Mr. Forth: Yes. Typically, my hon. Friend has pointed to the strength and dynamism of his region and is rightly showing a pride in the performance of his constituents and the firms in his constituency. What a contrast that is with Opposition Members.

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are unemployed at present and how many people were unemployed 12 months ago.

Mr. Howard: In January 1991 unemployment in the United Kingdom on the seasonally adjusted, consistent, basis was 1,888,500 compared with 1,615,800 a year earlier.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State expect unemployment to increase next year at the same rate as


during the past year? As the Government have surrendered their freedom to assist industry by reducing interest rates as a result of their membership of the exchange rate mechanism, will the Government now consider assisting employment figures in the kingdom by reducing the taxation burden on business?

Mr. Howard: The key to the long-term performance of the United Kingdom economy is the rooting out of inflation from that economy. Our membership of the ERM has an important part to play in reinforcing anti-inflationary disciplines. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that unemployment in his constituency, which was 4,206 at the last election, is now down by nearly 1,000 to 3,306.

Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unemployment would be considerably higher if it were not for tourism, for which he has departmental responsibility? In view of the growth in tourism since 1979 and the present crisis, will he look sympathetically at the possibility of increasing the British Tourist Authority's budget so that unemployment figures do not rise in that growth sector?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the tourist industry, which has made a conspicuous contribution to the reduction in unemployment that we have seen in recent years. My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for tourism is making an announcement today which will enable the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board to make more funds available for an advertising campaign which will help them to ensure that the industry continues to play an important part in reducing unemployment in Britain.

Mr. Leighton: Is not the present explosion in unemployment the final proof of the Government's failure? Is it not true that in each of the 11 years the Government have been in office unemployment has been higher than it was under Labour? As the economy requires at least 2 per cent. growth to remain stable, and as unemployment is a lagging indicator, is it not true that unemployment will rise for as far ahead as we can see? 'Will the Secretary of State have the grace to admit in plain English that that is a major failure on the part of the Government?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is making comparisons between what has happened under this Government and what happened under the Labour Government, he should give credit for the fact that there are some 2 million more jobs in Britain now than there were in 1979, that we have one of the lowest rates of unemployment in Europe, and that more than half the people who become unemployed leave unemployment within three months.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils are now operational.

Mr. Howard: Excellent progress is being made in setting up training and enterprise councils. All 82 TECs in

England and Wales are now in place, with 51 fully operational. By the summer, the full network will be up and running—a full two years ahead of schedule.

Mr. Stevens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the enterprise function of the TECs is of great importance and will aid the creation and survival of many small firms in future? But does not he find it regrettable that the Opposition are silent on the TECs' enterprise role?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. The TECs' enterprise role is crucial. They attach enormous importance to it. All we hear from the Opposition is that they attach importance to the enterprise role of local authorities.

Mr. Steinberg: Is the Secretary of State aware that since the introduction of the TECs in the northern region many schemes have been cut by between 40 and 50 per cent. and some schemes have had to finish? Is it not a disgrace that many of the trainees who have been made redundant and are now on the scrapheap are the less able ones? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something about it?

Mr. Howard: Trainees have not been put on the scrap heap and the hon. Gentleman should not make allegations of that sort. The interests of trainees are being safeguarded and alternative arrangements made when it is necessary for providers to cease operating. Training and enterprise councils ensure that effective training is provided, which sometimes means that existing providers are no longer able to carry on.

Training Credits

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the progress of the training credit pilots.

Mr. Howard: I was delighted to present the first training credits to young people in Suffolk on 14 February. In the coming months some 45,000 young school leavers throughout the pilot areas will have the opportunity to use training credits to obtain approved training of their choice.

Mr. Mitchell: Are not training credits an innovative and extremely individual approach towards training and very welcome because of that? Do they not mark an enormous contrast with the tired and outdated policies rewrapped by the Labour party which depend, as ever, on compulsion and coercion?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party has learnt nothing. Its reaction is always the same—reach for a quango, impose a new tax and introduce a dose of compulsion.

Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister not realise that training credit money is coming out of other money for training, which has been so savagely cut that many people—certainly those served by the Durham TEC—will lose any chance of training and that the opportunity to link training with employers is diminishing due to rising unemployment? In areas such as north-west Durham the position is critical. It is estimated that the cuts will mean up to 1,000 more people unemployed by the end of March.


Can the Minister tell us how the additional money that he has announced today will save the opportunities for those people to continue in training?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady is entirely wrong about the funding of training credits, which included a substantial element of new money. I am sure that she will find that the additional £120 million that I announced today will go a long way towards increasing the resources that the Durham training and enterprise council will have available to meet the training needs of the county.

Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall how the Labour party objected when the Government introduced the requirement for young people to report for training if they wished to claim income support—in other words, income support was to be reduced if they did not train? Is he therefore disturbed by the present proposals that the youth training scheme should be abolished?

Mr. Howard: I never know quite what to make of the various suggestions that come from the Labour party about their proposals. Yesterday a new document was produced, which represented yet another change in their proposals. It is such a moving picture that I find it quite bewildering.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the number of people registered at the Bermondsey unemployment benefit office for each month from January 1990 until February 1991, inclusive.

Mr. Forth: The information requested for January 1990 to January 1991 can be obtained from the NOMIS—national on-line manpower information system—database in the House of Commons Library. February 1991 figures will be available on 14 March.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister must be too embarrassed to give the figures. Does he concede that there was a 21 per cent. increase in unemployment in the past six months in one of the four docklands constituencies, that there was a 25 per cent. increase in female unemployment, that there is one job vacancy in the local office for every 40 people unemployed and that that is the clearest evidence of the growing recession which is sweeping the south-east, let alone the rest of the country? In a part of the world where the housing service is grossly overstretched, where the health service is pushed to its limits and where the social services cannot cope, is it a sign of success when the Government now tell people that they will lose their jobs as well? Is that a successful economic record?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to put that sort of interpretation upon what is happening if he so wishes, but I should have thought that it would be more realistic to point out that since he was elected in 1983 unemployment has dropped dramatically in his constituency, there are 100,000 fewer unemployed in London than in 1987 and unemployment in this country is lower than the average in the European Community, which I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman supports with great fervour. I might also mention the large number of imaginative programmes that my Department is making

available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others to help them over a difficult period if they should lose their jobs. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already pointed out, more than a quarter of those who lose their jobs come off the register within the first month, more than half leave it within three months and two thirds of those who lose their jobs are off the register within six months. That is a much more positive way of looking at it.

Perivale Skillcentre

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to replace the training undertaken at the Perivale skillcentre; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): The Perivale skill centre ceased to provide training in mid-1989 because there was ample alternative provision in the west London area. I am satisfied that the position is unchanged and that training is available, as required, under my Department's schemes.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the nearest skillcentre to Perivale is now in Twickenham, which is a long way from Ealing, where skill training has been provided for many years? Does he realise that there are many manufacturing jobs in Ealing, and that training is urgently required—on the spot, in Ealing?

Mr. Jackson: I shall look into what my hon. Friend has said. West London is, however, served by ample public transport networks and there are many providers of training in the west London area. There are 11 major providers of employment training there, with 1,055 trainees contracted locally, and a further 95 with national providers. There are no fewer than 57 major providers of youth training in the area, with some 2,700 young people receiving it. That, surely, is a considerable concentration of effort in west London.

Training

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of young people undergoing training on Government programmes in (a) 1978 and (b) 1990.

Mr. Jackson: In 1978 there were about 6,000 young people on Government training programmes, and in November 1990 there were about 350,000.

Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he remind hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, that the youth training scheme introduced by the Government, which guarantees training for every 16 and 17-year-old who needs it, has been an outstanding success and has helped many young people in Norwich? Will he confirm that extra money will be available in the coming year?

Mr. Jackson: The figures that I gave in my earlier answer speak for themselves—there has been a vast increase in youth training under the present Government. I will, however, give a few more figures. Since 1983, 2·7 million young people have benefited from YTS and YT. Currently some 350,000 are receiving training, of whom 88


per cent. then go into jobs, further education or further training. According to the latest figures, 67 per cent. of those who complete the course acquire vocational qualifications. That is a considerable achievement on the part of the Government.

Mrs. Mahon: What advice would the Minister give Jason Hanson, a 17-year-old in my constituency who has become so desperate that he has written to the local press saying, "I have been made redundant twice and I am only 17"? The reason for those redundancies is the high interest rate imposed by the Government. Jason has tried to get on to a Government training scheme, but has been turned down because of his age; he is also unable to draw any income.

Mr. Jackson: I am, of course, concerned about the individual case that the hon. Lady has raised, but the young man to whom she refers falls fairly within the guarantee of places on youth training that the Government offer.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many young people are still being put off youth training by Labour party propaganda? Will he take this opportunity to ensure that all young people are made well aware of what they will be missing if they do not grab the opportunity offered by this successful programme?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is quite right. We must repeatedly draw attention to the availability and advantages of YT. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right about the Opposition's attitude. They like to talk big about their commitment to training, but when they were in power they were useless at it, with only 6,000 on Government training programmes. No doubt it is that bad record that lies behind the continuing refusal of Opposition spokesmen to give any commitment to funding priorities for training, as compared with increases in consumption expenditure.

Mr. Fatchett: If the new training scheme is as successful as the Minister claims, will he explain to the House why he is prepared to preside over cuts that will reduce the amount of money spent per trainee and reduce the overall budget by more than £130 million over the next two years?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government are increasing expenditure on YT in the coming year by £38 million over the plan. We are the first Government in British history to provide a guarantee of training to any young person under the age of 18 who is not in full-time education or in work. With the training credits scheme, which is now being piloted, we shall be extending those facilities to young people who are in jobs.

Labour Statistics

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about trends in unemployment in Barnet since 1983.

Mr. Forth: In June 1983 unemployment in the Barnet local authority district was 9,477; in June 1987, when my hon. Friend was elected to this House it was 9,633; but in January 1991 it was down to 7,144.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that dramatic improvement is due to the fact that, since 1983,

there has been an increase of 500,000 in the number of people in jobs in Greater London? Does he agree that that illustrates how the social market economy creates jobs? Does he further agree that minimum wage legislation would destroy all those jobs?

Mr. Forth: Yes. I add to what my hon. Friend has rightly said by pointing out that there are now 100,000 fewer people out of work in Greater London than there were in 1987. My hon. Friend is right to point out that some of the proposals that we believe may be emanating from the Opposition Benches—although we can never he quite sure—such as a minimum wage, levies, taxes and compulsion, would all conspire to increase the level of unemployment. The Opposition would be disgraced if they admitted to that.

Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on current levels of unemployment and the projections of future unemployment made by economic forecasters.

Mr. Howard: In January 1991 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,888,500. In line with the practice of previous Governments, we do not forecast the level of unemployment.

Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State admit that unemployment is rising rapidly—particularly in the south-east, where people face the tragedy of losing their job and then losing their house, which is a terrible experience for any family? Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in this country still have not recovered from the enormous growth in unemployment in the early 1980s? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now apologise for the incompetence of his Government which has damaged the British economy and so many people's lives so badly?

Mr. Howard: I should have thought that the hon. Lady would point out that, in her constituency of Birmingham, Ladywood, unemployment was 10,319 when she was elected in June 1983; it was 8,892 in June 1987; last month it had come down to 5,940.

Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in 1983, unemployment in my constituency was 16 per cent. whereas today it is 4·6 per cent. and that the number of jobs becoming available is increasing?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's experience is characteristic of what has happened to the United Kingdom economy: we have 2 million more jobs now than when Labour left office in 1979.

Mr. McLeish: Does the Secretary of State agree that the £120 million announced for the unemployed is woefully inadequate when measured against the forecast of 2·5 million unemployed this year—the fastest rising unemployment rate in Europe—and a cut of £360 million in the ET budget? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to introduce a temporary work programme for the unemployed?

Mr. Howard: It is no use Opposition spokesmen coming to the Dispatch Box and complaining about funding for training when the shadow Chancellor consistently refuses to make training one of the two


immediate priorities on which Labour would increase spending. Opposition Members should have a word with the shadow Chancellor.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Points of order take up time. I have not heard anything out of order. What is it?

Mr. Hughes: There have been five questions about unemployment. In the answers to four of those, Ministers gave figures. Why were no figures at all given in reply to the question about inner London? Is that in order?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the answers that are given.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State is now to be informed for the third time that the sector of the unemployed who need urgent help are those with special needs. He must be aware that training and enterprise councils are reducing the numbers of places for such people as a result of substantial cuts in their funding. Will he now reply to the question that was put to him from the Labour Front Bench by stating that the funds lost as a result of those cuts will be restored following the announcement that he made today?

Mr. Howard: I repeat that, as a result of their inclusion in the aim group, people with disabilities have higher priority for employment training than they have ever had. I hope very much that the additional £120 million that I announced today will help training and enterprise councils to make more provision for those with special needs.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Many unemployed people are hopeful that they will gain places in training schemes, or will secure jobs, as a result of attendance at the very successful Government-sponsored job clubs. Those who attend these clubs testify to their success. Will the Secretary of State consider providing, in addition to the benefits that are already available, assistance with the travelling expenses of those attending interviews?

Mr. Howard: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's request. She is quite right to draw attention to the success of job clubs. We plan to create up to 100,000 extra opportunities in job clubs and through the job interview guarantee scheme next year.

Training

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has made any recent comparison of facilities available and the percentage of people trained in the United Kingdom and in Germany and France.

Mr. Howard: I visited France last month, and Germany last year, to look at their training arrangements. Despite the differences in approach, which make accurate statistical comparisons difficult, I found general agreement that successful competition in the 1990s will depend on employers' improving significantly the level of skill in their labour force.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recognise that Britain has an annual trading deficit of £15 billion to £16 billion and that many shrewd economic observers put this down to poor training facilities and the lack of skilled people? In these circumstances, and despite the sweetener

that he has handed out today, is it not the economics of the lunatic asylum to contemplate the provision of £500 million for training over the next two years?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the funding of our training programme, I am surprised that he did not welcome the very substantial additional funds that I announced today. We have in place the right training framework to ensure that our people will have the skills they need to compete effectively in the markets of the 1990s, and there is abundant evidence that our policies are working extremely effectively.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that even more facilities for employment training would be required if we were to adopt the Labour party's policies and introduce statutory minimum wages and impose restrictions on part-time workers?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is, of course, entirely right. The policies of the Labour party would lead to a very substantial loss of jobs. Labour Members show no recognition of the fact that there is no point in talking about training if one is not prepared to have adequate differentials to reward those who acquire the skills that training makes possible.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment in the United Kingdom and what were the figures for June 1979.

Mr. Howard: The level of unemployment in the United Kingdom on the seasonally adjusted, consistent, basis was 1,888,500 in January 1991 compared with 1,067,500 in June 1979.

Mr. Skinner: After more than 11 years, the Government have managed to push up their fiddled employment figures by more than 800,000. The chances are that, in the course of this year, unemployment will worsen. In the past few months, we have seen a further demonstration that it is possible to organise a war economy. Why, then, do not the Government use the same expertise to get rid of the dole queue?

Mr. Howard: Why does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that 2 million more people are in work now than in 1979 when his party last left office? This country has more people in work than ever before and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole of the European Community.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if one wants to increase employment, one should not increase the cost of labour to employers? Therefore, are not proposals to impose a compulsory training tax or a statutory minimum wage fatuously inappropriate and potentially destructive?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The statutory minimum wage proposal alone would destroy 750,000 jobs and the Opposition's policies would combine to ensure that unemployment rose to record levels.

Mr. Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in Scotland, every time we hear an announcement that unemployment is rising we call it the Tory fiddlers' rally,


because we do not believe the figures. Just last week, there were savage cuts in training—[Interruption.]—so much so that it was like the new Secretary of State sending the bride to the wedding without her wedding dress. That is the extent of the problem that the Government have created. There is a lack of funding, to ensure that people can find jobs—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the Secretary of State hear that?

Mr. Howard: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman was telling us how exceptionally well the Scottish economy is doing, and I entirely agree with him.

Industrial Disputes

Mr. Waller: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of working days lost because of industrial disputes in the six months to (a) December 1978 and (b) December 1990.

Mr. Forth: There were 6 million working days lost in the six months to December 1978; in the six months to December 1990, just 300,000 days were lost. That is less than one twentieth of the 1978 figure.

Mr. Waller: Does my hon. Friend detect a link between the sharp reduction in the number of strikes and the Government's industrial relations reforms? Does he recall that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) called ballots an irrelevant effrontery? Do not the consequences since that time prove that his verdict is entirely wrong?

Mr. Forth: Yes, my hon. Friend is right to say that the Government's steady but consistent policy of reform of industrial relations has brought the trade unions into a proper relationship with their members and society at large. A vital by-product of that process is the dramatic fall in industrial strikes, which has been a major factor in attracting inward investment to this country and in increasing employment.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that, every year since 1978, the number of days lost through injury and health problems at work has vastly dominated losses in every other sphere? Why are there ministerial tantrums when the issue of industrial disputes is raised, but complacency and inaction when people are injured or die at work?

Mr. Forth: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should criticise the excellent work of the independent

Textile footwear and clothing
Paper, printing and publishing



Notifications quoting closure as reason
All notified redundancies
Notifications quoting closure as reason
All notified redundancies



Establishments
Employees
Establishments
Employees
Establishments
Employees
Establishments
Employees


1990


August
18
882
34
2,062
12
584
25
930


September
14
867
38
1,640
5
105,
15
515


October
14
977
41
2,069
7
176
45
1,555


November
13
597
45
1,708
11
347
34
1,066


December
11
1,073
32
1,781
9
574
28
945


1991


January
16
1,686
31
2,169
10
371
33
898

Health and Safety Executive and Health and Safety Commission, which discharge fully and effectively their responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. They have our full support. I am sorry to see that they do not have the Opposition's support.

Company Closures

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many mill and company closures and redundancies have been notified to his Department in each of the last six months by the textile and clothing industry and the paper and board industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jackson: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I shall, with permission, arrange for the information to be printed in the Official Report.

Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the textile and clothing and the paper and board industries are vital to many regions of this country, are essential to this country's economy, that many people are employed in them and that they have made many investments? Will he use the best expertise of his Department to ensure that other Departments of State, particularly the Treasury, realise that high interest rates are killing those industries, which are not operating on a level playing field? Those industries are essential if this country is to play its part in the future of the European Community and the world at large.

Mr. Jackson: I agree that those industries are important. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the relevant Departments.

Mr. Beggs: The textile and clothing and paper and board industries are of great importance to us in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister seek the co-operation of his Government colleagues to ensure that, in future GATT negotiations, as much protection as possible will be afforded to our textile and clothing industry in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Jackson: We all understand in the House that the only sure basis on which industry can succeed is to be competitive. That is why it is Government policy to phase out the protection arrangements in the textile industry, although we shall do so over a long period. That is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. The GATT negotiations are about to resume and they will provide an opportunity to further pursue such matters.

Following is the information:

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there can be no ceasefire in the Gulf war until all relevant United Nations resolutions have been fully implemented, prisoners of war and Kuwaiti hostages held in Iraq have been released and all Iraqi troops have laid down their arms?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but unfortunately the conditions that he so succinctly set out have not yet been met. As my hon. Friend will know, Saddam Hussein spoke again this morning, but without giving any indication whatsoever that Iraq will comply with all the Security Council resolutions. Instead, this morning Saddam Hussein reiterated his untrue claim that Kuwait was part of Iraq and threatened implicitly to return. He must know that meeting the Security Council resolutions is an essential step, and he must publicly and explicitly do so.
I believe that we are now in a new situation with the beginning of the ground war. Our first concern has to be with the safety and security of our forces—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That means that we require all Iraqi forces in the theatre of operations—those occupying and those supporting the occupation of Kuwait—to abandon their weapons and equipment, and withdraw. Until they do so, they will be treated as hostile.
Saddam Hussein started this war on his terms. He must end it on the terms set out by the United Nations.

Mr. Kinnock: May I take this opportunity strongly to commend our forces for the bravery and professionalism that they are showing in the liberation of Kuwait? Does the Prime Minister share my view that Saddam Hussein could halt the war instantly if he were personally to announce his complete compliance with all relevant United Nations resolutions and, in addition, immediately release all the prisoners of war and civilians he is holding against their will in both Kuwait and Iraq?
Finally, is it not clear that if Iraqi forces leave their military vehicles and lay down their arms, they will be safe from attack, our forces will know that they are also safe from attack, and all hostilities can end?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right and I agree with him without reservation. He will know that, even this morning, Saddam Hussein said—I shall quote him because there was an implicit threat in what he said:
the Gates of Constantinople were not opened before the Muslims in the first struggling attempt.
That is the clearest threat that he will yet again return. We have a duty and an obligation to remove that threat using all necessary means.

Dame Janet Fookes: As Saddam Hussein, like the devil, is the father of lies, would my right hon. Friend ensure that all in authority take not the slightest notice of what he says, but only of what he does?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There have been many occasions in recent months when Saddam Hussein expressly told untruths. At one stage, his Foreign Minister was negotiating on one tack while he was speaking and acting on another. We simply cannot and do not trust him.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that, despite today's welcome news, there is still much hard and potentially costly work to be done before Kuwait is made secure? He is entirely right to say that the safety of our troops and the long-term security of Kuwait mean that any Iraqi troops who wish to return home may do so, but only after they have surrendered their weapons. If they do so, will he say that, once Kuwait is at last liberated, secure and free from threat, Desert Storm will end?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Those are the circumstances in which Desert Storm can end. He is right to emphasise yet again the safety and security of our troops. Frankly, I do not believe that either they or world opinion would forgive us if, at this stage of the conflict, we permitted the Iraqis to withdraw with their weapons, perhaps with risk to our troops and the risk that they would return later.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have established 12 regional technology centres to aid technology transfer? Can he also confirm that under this Government, the number of science parks has increased from two to 39 with 22 more planned and that spending on civil research and development is higher, as a percentage of the gross national product, in this country than in Japan or in the United States? Does he agree that calls for the establishment of such policies, when they are already in train, merely demonstrates that those who call for them show muddle and ignorance, which dominate Labour party thinking?

The Prime Minister: I cannot immediately imagine to what document my hon. Friend is referring. If, perchance, he is referring to the document on industrial and manufacturing matters that was released yesterday by the Labour party, he is a little unkind. There were some good ideas in that document. Unfortunately, the good ideas are already being implemented and the bad ideas are being recycled.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for the Environment who wants to do away with the poll tax or with the Minister of State for the Environment who has gone on record in the Ribble Valley by-election as saying that he wishes to keep it?

The Prime Minister: The next Member of Parliament for Ribble Valley, who I hope will soon be on the Conservative Benches, will be here in time to hear the result of our review of the community charge.

Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. French: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an industrial policy that is based on the creation of quangos, subsidies and inadequately costed tax breaks is, as the Financial Times called it this morning, a "recipe for … economic distortion"?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, but, again, I fear that he is being too charitable. He has forgotten the reinvention of the son of National Enterprise Board, an enterprise which took money away from viable businesses to pick winners which, alas, went bust.

Mr. Alfred Morris: What emphasis will the Government put on reparations from Iraq and to what extent will they be demanded? Moreover, what is the attitude of other Governments in the coalition?

The Prime Minister: The attitude is set out in the Security Council's resolutions. All Governments in the coalition subscribe to them and that remains the position.

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: This House has been powerfully united against the terrorism practised by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the House is also united against the evil acts of terrorism in this country and that it supports all measures, including the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989? Will he have a word with the Leader of the Opposition to encourage him to be more robust on the issue?

The Prime Minister: No one doubts the commitment of the whole House to deal effectively with terrorism and not to give way to it. In my judgment, the widest possible support for the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act would be a welcome event and would help to that end.

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Brown: I know that the Prime Minister is involved in many important duties. However, will he understand one thing? The real enemy is at home; the enemy is the capitalist system and the Tory Government. They are responsible for the problems of the British people.
We have an example of a state-owned British company wishing to take over the fertiliser business, presently owned by ICI. That is blocked because of the Government's blind party dogma. If we want investment in this country, is not that unfair to workers who may lose their jobs, especially in Leith, where there is a subsidiary owned by ICI called Scottish Agricultural Industries? Is not that wrong?

The Prime Minister: It is a rum occasion when I have to take lessons in dogma from the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Hugh Rossi: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Hugh Rossi: As a successful end to the hostilities in the Gulf is happily within reach, will my right hon. Friend now ensure that the allies will combat, with the same vigour and single-mindedness of purpose, the premeditated ecological vandalism perpetrated by Saddam Hussein? It places at risk the worldwide environment from acid deposition, from accelerated global warming and from desertification, and it also pollutes and poisons the waters of the Gulf.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right and he touches on an important point. The United Kingdom has already made a substantial contribution to help to deal with the pollution caused by the Iraqis in recent weeks. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. An international effort will be needed and we will be part of that.

Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Battle: As it is clear that some of the right hon. Gentleman's Social Security Ministers want to continue the freeze on child benefit and that some do not, will he tell us which ones he will back? Will he pledge now to make good the four-year cut in child benefit or will people have to rely on his one-off, occasional piecemeal statements at the Dispatch Box for their basic benefits?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are occasions when we make statements on public expenditure matters such as child benefit. This is not one of them.

Mr. Dunn: When accounts are rendered for the Gulf war, will the Prime Minister seek to obtain an explanation of the extraordinary behaviour of the Soviet Union in recent days? Will he make it plain to the Soviet Government that they can play ball either with the west or with Iraq, but not with both?

The Prime Minister: I shall have the opportunity to discuss all those matters with Mr. Gorbachev early next week.

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Prime Minister aware that hundreds of young Scots, half of them aged under 18, pass through London's night shelters every year and that research has shown that on average each of those youngsters has less than £2? Why does the Prime Minister continue to deny to the 16 and 17-year-olds among them the right to benefit? Is the fate of those youngsters who


have been thrown on to the streets and are vulnerable to drugs and prostitution a matter of complete indifference to the Prime Minister and his Government?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong, as he knows. We have provided unprecedented training opportunities for young people of that age. There is no necessity whatsoever for any of them to be sleeping rough on the streets of London.

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that just as the world recognises the strength and discipline of our armed forces, so it should recognise the strength and discipline of our economy? Is not our pound sterling as strong as Chobham armour?

The Prime Minister: I agree. My hon. Friend will know that there has been a remarkable series of events in recent months and he will also know that sterling has remained remarkably stable despite those events.

Mr. Hume: During his visit to Northern Ireland last week, did anyone raise with the Prime Minister the security value of fixed military checkpoints? Did anyone point out that over the past 20 years nothing of security value has been found at such checkpoints, and that they have become security risks providing targets in the form of the young soldiers and policemen who man them? Is the Prime Minister considering reviewing the use of such checkpoints?

The Prime Minister: I discussed a raft of security matters during my meetings in Northern Ireland last week. However, the hon. Gentleman is aware that it would be unwise to discuss them.

The Gulf

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the report that Iraqi troops have been ordered to withdraw from Kuwait.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I have been asked to reply.
Last night, there was a report on Baghdad radio that Iraqi forces had been ordered to withdraw from Kuwait. In a broadcast this morning, Saddam Hussein appeared to confirm this. At the same time as this order was apparently given, however, two further Scud attacks were launched, one of which caused a large number of casualties among United States forces in Dhahran. At this time, we have no reliable information and evidence of a general Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. In many areas in southern Iraq and Kuwait, Iraqi forces are retreating, but as a result of allied military action. British and allied troops are still in contact with Iraqi forces.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago, what we require now is that Saddam Hussein publicly and explicitly accepts all the Security Council resolutions. To ensure the safety and security of our forces, we require all Iraqi forces in the theatre of operations, both those occupying Kuwait and those supporting the occupation, to abandon their weapons and equipment and withdraw. Otherwise, they will continue to be treated as hostile.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that, if Saddam Hussein had, on 2 August, made the announcement that he has belatedly made today, he would have prevented loss of life and suffering among Kuwaitis, in the coalition forces, and, not least, among the people of Iraq whom he has victimised? Does he also agree that the sooner the war ends the better for everyone, and that the war can end as soon as necessary conditions have been fulfilled?
Those conditions include full and unequivocal acceptance by Saddam Hussein of all 12 United Nations Security Council resolutions.; proper supervision arrangements for the Iraqi withdrawal, with Iraqis leaving behind arms and equipment that could enable attacks to be made on coalition forces and possession of which might lead members of the coalition forces, in the interests of their own safety, to fire upon retreating Iraqis; full disclosure on the spot to coalition forces of all minefields and other defence systems that could cause loss of life to our service men and women; a clear and verifiable commitment not to launch any further Scud missile attacks on Saudi Arabia, Israel or any other neighbouring countries; release of all coalition prisoners of war and of Kuwaiti detainees, and immediate access to our prisoners of war by the International Red Cross.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the coalition war aims have not changed and remain as stated in the House last Thursday by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, when he said that our objectives are
the full and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the restoration of the legitimate Government of that

country and the restoration of peace and security in the region."—[Official Report, 21 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 455.]—
but that we do not intend to occupy Iraq, we do not intend to change the borders, and we do not wish the destruction of its economy?
Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to our armed forces, whose courage and professionalism have brought about this precipitate collapse of Saddam Hussein? Does he agree that, now that Saddam Hussein has been forced to abandon his hypocritical attempt to link the Kuwait issue with the Palestine issue, the path is open to deal with the Palestine issue? Does he also agree that the best way to build on what our forces have achieved is now to turn our hand to a comprehensive settlement, under United Nations auspices, of all the problems of the middle east?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the whole House will strongly support what he has said. I can confirm his first point straight away—that, if Saddam Hussein had been prepared on 2 August to fulfil the assurances that he appears to be giving now, an awful lot of pain, grief and suffering would have been avoided. In his supplementary questions the right hon. Gentleman correctly drew out the fact that, having involved Kuwait, the coalition and the world in all the pain and suffering, the terms now for Saddam Hussein's successful withdrawal from Kuwait and for the successful ending of the conflict are not the same as they would have been on 2 August if he had had the sense to accept them then.
I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about our armed forces. Before coming to the House, I spoke to General de la Billiere, who confirmed to me the excellent spirit and commitment with which our forces are carrying forward the campaign. I was especially struck by one of his comments, that many of the prisoners who are now being taken have not had any food for six days. He commented on their pleasure at being captured and at having some prospect of reasonable treatment in captivity, which they have certainly never had under the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Could my right hon. Friend pass on to our armed forces the indebtedness of the whole House for their courage, effectiveness and efficiency over the last few weeks, without which we would not have arrived at the present relatively improved position? Now that we are looking from Kuwait to peace and security within the region, can we also look to other United Nations resolutions, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, and see to it also, now that we are ending the occupation of Kuwait, that other occupations in the region are likewise addressed?

Mr. King: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the courage and commitment of our forces and about seeking a solution for other territories. Perhaps I could now clarify the point raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about any change in the war aims. I apologise for not addressing that in my reply to him. There is no change in the war aims, and I can confirm to the House that we have no territorial ambitions. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) also addressed that point to me yesterday. I


should like to make it absolutely clear that we do not seek to acquire the territory of Iraq. It is a military necessity that we have to proceed through Iraq for the liberation of Kuwait. It may well be that, in the initial aftermath of this activity, we shall need to ensure the security of Kuwait in some way, but we have no long-term territorial ambitions. We seek no change in borders. I give the House that assurance.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as the Prime Minister and others have said in the House, time and again, that, if Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, the war would end and, as an order to the Iraqi troops to withdraw has now been given, it is wrong to continue the brutal savagery of warfare on both sides——

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has the absolute right to express his view.

Mr. Benn: —including air raids on Baghdad this morning? Does he agree that millions of people in the world——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House well knows, this is a place where every hon. Member has freedom of speech.

Mr. Benn: Millions of people in the world want the killing to stop now, and there is no United Nations authority for the terms which the Secretary of State announced today. Indeed, the Security Council was not even allowed to discuss the Soviet peace proposals before the American ultimatum was issued last Friday.

Mr. King: One of the tragic things about the past months of this awful conflict has been the total inability of the right hon. Gentleman to see things in any balanced way. As he knows perfectly well, the allied campaign for the liberation of Kuwait has been conducted at all times with the greatest commitment to minimising civilian casualties. He will know that, for such a degree of conflict, that has been achieved in a remarkable way. He will know, because he can see it if he looks at any of the pictures, the readiness and happiness of the Iraqi soldiers to surrender, give themselves up and have some prospect of decent treatment. He knows perfectly well that the place where the conflict, suffering, killing and murdering is taking place is not at the front line, where Iraqi forces are surrendering readily, but in Kuwait, against the defenceless citizens who have been so disgracefully treated.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: When my right hon. Friend mentions those appalling atrocities committed in Kuwait, does he also agree that it must be an aim of the United Nations forces that any Iraqi individuals or units which have been responsible for barbarous behaviour must be captured and brought to trial, or at least have their crimes thoroughly investigated, before they are allowed to return to Iraq? Will my right hon. Friend endorse that?

Mr. King: I can assure my right hon. Friend that that point is very much in the minds of the military commanders in the area. We have already warned every Iraqi by leaflets and other methods of the personal responsibility that he bears under international law. We

are making every effort to ensure that evidence will be collected about any atrocity or outrage committed. I can say, without disclosing any military secret or operations, that there is a major effort to ensure that those who have committed atrocities in Kuwait City have the least chance of getting away before evidence can be gathered against them.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the natural desire both inside and outside the House for an early end to hostilities should not be allowed to obscure the unsatisfactory nature of the offer to withdraw which Saddam Hussein has made? Does he further agree that, if any offer were accepted which constituted less than the full implementation of all the United Nations resolutions, the likelihood of a further outbreak of hostilities in due course would be considerable?

Mr. King: I very much agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Those who can see this in any balanced way would think it absolutely incredible, after the aggression that has been committed and the outrages and behaviour that we have seen, if we merely stood back and allowed Iraqi forces and all their equipments and armaments to pass in review order down the road so that they could regroup and possibly commit exactly the same aggression again.

Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind the suffering, the torture, the rape and the murder for which Saddam Hussein and his army of occupation have been responsible, as well as the casualties that he has inflicted on Israel and the allied forces, is it not wholly unacceptable even to consider any possibility of his army of occupation, including the Republican Guard, in the Kuwaiti theatre of operations being allowed to leave before they have fully surrendered to the allies?

Mr. King: The words of my hon. Friend are, I am afraid, all too accurate about all the evidence that we have of what has been happening in Kuwait and in Kuwait City. The news that we are receiving about what has been happening to Kuwaitis at the hands of Iraqi soldiers and the Iraqi military is extremely distressing. It is for that reason that we have taken such a strong view. We have found it necessary to conduct a campaign which we did not seek. We are not now going to leave it unfinished. We will see Kuwait liberated; we will see that Kuwait stays liberated.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Although I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, will the Secretary of State assure us that, if the Security Council requests it or, from Baghdad, Saddam Hussein accepts entirely the 12 United Nations resolutions, the coalition forces will immediately give access to the international organisations which would be the most appropriate bodies to carry out the functions that will be required? For instance, the International Committee of the Red Cross is the most appropriate organisation to deal with prisoners of war. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the emphasis placed by the Government on the United Nations resolutions will continue, so that young lives and the civilian lives will not have been lost for nothing and


that we will soon see the United Nations Security Council sitting down to discuss a meaningful set of proposals that would result in a comprehensive middle east peace?

Mr. King: On the first point, in relation to the International Committee of the Red Cross, we will honour our obligations entirely. Right hon. and hon. Members have seen pictures of the way in which we are trying to deal humanely with prisoners. We have seen pathetic pictures on television of the gratitude clearly shown by the Iraqis for the treatment, which is not what they would have expected to get from their own punishment squads who lay behind them. We will give full access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
If Saddam Hussein wishes to see an end to the conflict, one of our requirements is that we have immediate access through the Red Cross to our prisoners of war. We want their names; we want to know who they are. We want to give reassurance to their families that they are still alive—knowledge which, sadly, is still lacking for many of them. On the further point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made our position very clear; we wish to see the conflict settled and the aggression ended, so that we may address the other serious issues that need to be addressed in the area.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Does the Secretary of State agree that the violent, bellicose and lying language used by President Saddam in his broadcast to the people of Iraq negates and rebuts his alleged acceptance of the Soviet peace proposals, and sows the seeds of further aggression in the Gulf? Will he convey to the relatives of the American soldiers killed in the Scud attack yesterday, at the time that President Saddam was supposed to be making peace offers, the sympathy of the people of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the heavy burden that the American forces are bearing in the Gulf?

Mr. King: On the latter point, I know that the whole House will share the feelings that the hon. Member has expressed about the tragic, unlucky accident with the Scud warhead last night and the severe suffering of the American forces. He is right to draw attention to the unreliability of Saddam Hussein. I would not dream of recommending to the House or to anybody else that they accept any speech of Saddam Hussein's at face value. From their experience of dealing with him, there are not many Iranians or many other Arabs either who would do that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the reason we are in a difficult position now is that Saddam Hussein lied directly to the King of Saudi Arabia and to the President of Egypt.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In paying tribute to all the allied troops and ancillary services, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree that we have a responsibility to ensure that no allied lives will have been, or may be, lost in vain? In that context, can he confirm that a detailed analysis of the speech by Saddam Hussein shows that it was his clear intention to regroup and return to the battle at a future date? Will he assure the House that no settlement will allow that facility, bearing in mind the fact that the long-term hopes for peace in the region are based on him never being given that opportunity?

Mr. King: I am grateful for what the hon. Lady says. She is precisely right in her reading of that speech. We shall

not expose any of our forces—as she knows, many young Scots are among the British forces in the Gulf—to unnecessary risk.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week, on behalf of the all-party human rights group in the House, I took evidence from witnesses from Kuwait who detailed the most horrific crimes, starting with the invasion at the beginning and apparently continuing now? Is any effort being made by our people on the spot to record those details, in conjunction possibly with the Kuwaiti authorities, so that those responsible can be brought to account at the appropriate time?

Mr. King: I do indeed know of the evidence on the occasion to which my right hon. Friend refers, and I understand that much of the evidence was extremely distressing. I assure him that there is great determination among the allies, the Kuwaiti authorities and the Kuwaiti resistance to try to ensure that any evidence that can be brought is brought and that those who may have been responsible for perpetrating those crimes are not able in the next few hours to slip away.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to early-day motion 533 entitled "The Tory Party and Saddam Hussein"? It points out that, of the 31 motions on the Order Paper critical of Saddam Hussein and what he has done to his own people and others in the region, only one motion was tabled by a Conservative.
Under those circumstances, Labour Members need no lectures about the evil of Saddam Hussein from incompetent unimaginative and hypocritical Ministers. When the war is over, will the British Government be announcing an arms embargo to the middle east to make sure that we do not create another Saddam Hussein whom our brave troops will then have to move on and disarm?

Mr. King: My understanding—I will withdraw if I have it wrong—

Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman gets most things wrong.—

Mr. King: —is that the hon. Gentleman voted against every motion in support of resolute action against Saddam Hussein. The one voice that we need to go from this House at this time to our forces engaged in the challenging task to which we have asked them to put their hand is the voice of support from us all for the importance of the work that they are doing.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend take every step to ensure that first the prisoners, for whom we all feel extremely sorry, and then the whole population of Iraq, are made aware of the foul nature of the bestial crimes committed by this tyrant against their Arab brethren?

Mr. King: We have our suspicions, but in the days ahead we may well discover a good deal more—even worse than some of the things to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) referred. I do not want to say more now, but some of the information coming through to us is very grave indeed.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The whole House should be grateful to the service men of all the


nations of the coalition who have achieved the liberation of the small country of Kuwait. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we now owe it, as politicians, to those service men to ensure that we achieve a lasting peace, which must mean a fair settlement for the Iraqi people and—this is of extreme importance—include the settlement of the other outstanding United Nations resolutions concerning the region and affecting Palestine?

Mr. King: The first thing that we need to do, having asked our forces to risk their lives in this conflict, is to ensure the right outcome. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush today issued a statement about the basis on which the conflict can be settled. Nobody wants the conflict to go on for any longer than necessary, but we have a duty to our forces to see that the terms on which it is settled are fair and safe for them. As soon as we have settled this conflict, we can address other issues.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The Government's and the coalition's planning and handling of the war effort have been superb, largely due to the courage, brilliance and professionalism of our troops. Does the coalition have a plan for the immediate handling of the peace and, if so, could someone tell us what it is?

Mr. King: Considerable work is being done. If the peace to which my hon. and learned Friend refers is peace in Kuwait, that of course has very much concerned the Government of Kuwait. It will be a challenging task, and while much preparatory work has been done, there is no question but that the task has been made even more difficult by the increasing reports of damage. My hon. and learned Friend may have heard this morning one reporter who said that it is quite clear that the main activity in the last days of the Iraqi forces has been to do as much damage as they can to Kuwait and very little to conduct a proper defence.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if civilian and military lives, including the lives of young British service personnel, are to be saved, the war must be brought to an early and orderly end, with the best possible lines of communication between politicians of many countries and military commanders on the ground? In that context, can the Secretary of State say how and when the United Nations will be given direct responsibility for arranging an orderly withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, monitoring and supervising the ceasefire that will follow, and setting about the awesome agenda for bringing durable peace and stability to the region?

Mr. King: Everybody wants to see the earliest possible resolution of this conflict and an end to fighting. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out as clearly as he could, and why I have repeated, the basis on which that can be achieved. The hon. Gentleman may know that, just a few minutes ago, the President of the United States spelled out exactly the same conditions as part of the coalition agreement. The United Nations is not in Kuwait or in the theatre of operations, but we are acting under its authority. It is against that background that we have to find the earliest and safest basis on which this conflict can be ended.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about saving the lives of young men. We have a duty to those young men to see that we conclude this matter on a safe, sound and secure basis for the future. The biggest betrayal would be to launch these young men into the conflict and ask them to risk their lives and then to let it end in some premature or fudged way which meant that the job had not been properly done.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: My right hon. Friend mentioned the pathetic state of the Iraqi prisoners of war. Does he consider that the dignity, humanity and restraint being shown by allied troops towards those prisoners, which is in direct contrast to the way in which allied prisoners have been treated, not only is right in itself but will be an important and useful factor in winning the peace when the war is over?

Mr. King: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who mentions one of the matters that may be of lasting benefit to relationships in the area. There has been much propaganda, and anyone who knows anything about the regime of Saddam Hussein over the years knows the power of state propaganda. A considerable number of his Iraqi forces now recognise for what they are the many lies that have been told about the allied forces.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Secretary of State will recall that, some weeks ago, he paid tribute to the Territorial Army—in particular, the Royal Army Medical Corps, one of whose young nurses is a constituent of mine. Her mother informs me that the electricity board has said that, despite the fact that because her daughter is in the Gulf and her house is unoccupied, standing charges will still be included on her account. If that nurse remains in the Gulf for long enough, her electricity could be cut off. Surely that is a shameful way for a national utility to treat people who were the first to volunteer in response to this country's call.

Mr. King: I do not think that there is the slightest risk of such people having their electricity cut off in their absence. However, I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point. The whole country has shown its support for our forces. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the reserve forces and the way in which so many of them—every one of them, I think that I am right in saying, a volunteer—have willingly gone to serve in the Gulf in support of our forces.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Hon. Members: Soames.

Mr. Speaker: Not yet.
This is a private notice question. There are 23 groups of amendments in the following Bill but, in view of the importance of the matter, I will allow three more questions from each side. I call first Mr. Soames.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: In view of the great difficulties in dealing with someone as dishonest and irrational as Saddam Hussein, may I suggest that General Schwarzkopf should offer the senior Iraqi commander in the field a full instrument of unconditional surrender, appended to which should be full details of the mining and booby-trapping of Kuwait? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if that were to be accepted, it would spare a great deal of anxiety and further loss of life?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend raises serious points. There are real difficulties about the trustworthiness of Saddam Hussein and his powers to communicate with his forces. We are giving close attention to what might be the right vehicle for such communications. I shall bear in mind by hon. Friend's suggestion.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fair tone of the Secretary of State's statement, but does he agree that those who talk about trusting Saddam Hussein's words about returning to Iraq would not have many friends in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, where the people are aware of a similar statement when Saddam Hussein said that he would not be invading Kuwait?
What plans are afoot for the future? People talk about the middle east settlement, but, if Saddam Hussein regroups with his forces in Iraq, what about the Gulf settlement? When the Prime Minister meets President Gorbachev next week, will he ask what terms and conditions have been reached with the Russians for the future stability of the area and for reparations to Kuwait after the ravages of the war?

Mr. King: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments and will no doubt bear them in mind. The basis on which we can ensure security and stability in the area will depend on how the conflict ends, but the success of the coalition forces has given the area a much better prospect of a more stable and less aggressive approach from Iraq in future.

Mr. Tony Favell: No doubt history will show for how much the humane world has to thank Britain, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, for the resolve that he has been shown in dealing with this dictator. In view of what Saddam Hussein was saying to his people last night, is it not important that he should in no way be able to show any kind of victory?

Mr. King: When Kuwait is liberated and evidence of what has been authorised in Kuwait by Saddam Hussein becomes apparent, the world will realise the force of what my hon. Friend says. The situation is not yet finalised, but we have all seen enough to know the rightness of the decision to stand firm, to work as a coalition, to seek the widest possible international support for the action and not to find some way out, some deal of some sort, some negotiation halfway through this terrible business that has lasted for all these months.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Now that you have called me and the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), Mr. Speaker, it has become the "Little and Large" show. Before 2 August last year, a number of British children were illegally abducted and taken to Kuwait, and they have remained there during the hostilities. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that we shall try to identify and locate these British children as soon as possible, so that their mothers in this country will hopefully learn that they are okay and have not been damaged in any way by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?
Secondly, having located the children, will the right hon. Gentleman make every possible effort to have them returned to their mothers in Britain, because they were

illegally abducted from the United Kingdom by Kuwaiti citizens, who had no right to take them there in the first place? Given that we have made so many sacrifices to free the people of Kuwait, the least that they can do is send back our children who have been illegally abducted.

Mr. King: Obviously I cannot comment on the detail, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. Once Kuwait is liberated, there will be a chance for the normal processes of international law to reassert themselves upon such matters.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: As further evidence that the so-called Iraqi pull-out may be nothing more than a cynical manoeuvre in bad faith, will my right hon. Friend take careful note of today's reports that the Iraqi army has been rounding up significant numbers of young Kuwaitis, presumably to take them as hostages or, even worse, for the sort of atrocities that my right hon. Friend hinted at? Is it not out of the question that we should discuss a ceasefire as long as such bestial actions continue?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I know that he knows the area well and will have his own sources, which tend to confirm the extremely distressing information which is coming through about that behaviour. That is why, as he rightly says, "withdrawal" is another word for regrouping in certain circumstances and is a technique and a trick that Saddam Hussein used against the Iranians to considerable effect. He took advantage of prolonging discussions on a possible ceasefire to launch a new attack and to capture thousands of Iranian prisoners of war during the Iran-Iraq war, and we shall not fall into that trap.

Mr. John McWilliam: Will the Secretary of State make it clear—I am sure that it was inadvertent—that Saddam Hussein did not unequivocally accept the United Nations resolutions in the speech that was broadcast this morning? Will he further make it clear, in the absence of access by the International Committee of the Red Cross to our prisoners of war who are being held by Iraq, that Saddam Hussein will be held personally responsible for their safety?

Mr. King: In case I gave any impression that I thought that Saddam Hussein had unequivocally accepted, I am glad to take this opportunity to make it clear that he did no such thing; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is a pretty depressing experience trying to read Saddam Hussein's speeches and to work our what on earth they do mean, but it is quite clear that they do not mean that. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, implied within the speech is a very sinister threat indeed—to regroup and to seek to have another go.
On the wider issue, we have made our position very clear. People are individually responsible for their actions. There is a worrying and increasing roll of evidence of some of the things that have happened, and they will need to be given careful attention.

Veterans

Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Department of Veterans' Affairs with responsibility for resettlement of veterans, care and rehabilitation of disabled veterans, support for veterans' families, and related matters; and for connected purposes.
The Bill—which is supported by the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association and several other ex-service organisations—also enjoys wide support in the House, as I hope to demonstrate when I give the names of its sponsors.
I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and other organisations for their work on behalf of veterans. The Bill's purpose is to help that work by making the Government more accountable in the way in which it deals with the concerns of veterans. Currently, some 18 million veterans and their dependants are in this country; compared to those in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries, only a small proportion have any special status in terms of either pension provision or specialised welfare services. Responsibility for dealing with the needs of veterans lies with 16 different Government Departments: most right-minded people would agree that that is a recipe for red tape and confusion, which indeed result from the present system.
The scope and nature of the problems caused to individuals can be illustrated by the case of Corporal Blackburn, which has been raised before in the House. Corporal Blackburn is a young soldier who was injured in service and consequently became paralysed, which necessitated long hospitalisation and confinement to a wheelchair for life. Quite apart from his disabilities, which were traumatic enough in themselves, the man had to cope almost entirely on his own with resettlement and rehabilitation. Paradoxically, there was no Ministry of Defence social worker in the military hospital to which he was confined, although such a facility was available to NHS intake patients.
Corporal Blackburn eventually managed to leave hospital, but his departure was delayed because of the problem of finding accommodation that had been suitably adapted for his severe disablement. The whole process of

rehabilitation involved several agencies and Government Departments, and, while that would have been difficult enough for an able-bodied person to deal with, it was much more of a problem for someone who was virtually paralysed and trying to come to terms with his condition. The corporal was single; had he been married, that might have solved some of the problems, but it would obviously have created many others.
Corporal Blackburn has spent some two and a half years trying to get his problems solved, and they are not all solved yet. That case highlights the difficulties that many people experience.
The Bill seeks to streamline the service and the support given in such a way as to minimise the stress and hardship that confront ex-service personnel and their families, particularly in cases such as that of Corporal Blackburn. It will ensure that they receive all the help with resettlement, care and rehabilitation, and all the support for their families, that is necessary. It will also co-ordinate responses, which at present are scattered and confusing.
Soon we shall have a new generation of veterans, as service people return from the Gulf—people who joined the services and, lately, have fought for the United Nations resolutions and other Gulf causes, and who carry out the tough and often bloody work that is necessary from time to time. During such conflicts, however, our support should not be confined to fine words. We must also turn our minds to setting up a system that will help such people to adjust to leading lives that are as normal as possible. So far, we have failed in that task; the Bill provides a framework within which we can remedy that failure and recognise our responsibilities.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Rupert Allason, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. Don Dixon, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Michael Foot, Sir Marcus Fox, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Sir David Steel and Mr. Brian Wilson.

VETERANS

Mr. George Howarth accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Department of Veterans' Affairs with responsibility for resettlement of veterans, care and rehabilitation of disabled veterans, support for veterans' families, and related matters; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

Orders of the Day — Road Traffic Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 4

SUPPLY OF UNROADWORTHY VEHICLES ETC.

'.—(1) Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (vehicles not to be sold in unroadworthy condition or altered so as to be unroadworthy) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3), sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a) shall be omitted and for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
(b) it is in such a condition that its use on a road would involve a danger of injury to any person".

(3) In subsection (4), after the words "that condition" there shall be inserted—
(a)",
and at the end there shall be added the words "or
(b) would involve a danger of injury to any person.

(4) In subsection (6), paragraph (c) shall be omitted.

(5) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
(6A) Paragraph (b) of subsection (6) above shall not apply in relation to a person who, in the course of a trade or business—

(a) exposes a vehicle or trailer for sale, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that any prospective purchaser would be aware that its use in its current condition on a road in Great Britain would be unlawful, or
(b) offers to sell a vehicle or trailer, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that the person to whom the offer was made was aware of that fact.".'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38.

Mr. Chope: The new clause arises out of concerns expressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about the sale of unroadworthy vehicles. At present, the existing provisions which are designed to prevent the sale of unroadworthy vehicles do not operate satisfactorily because when confronted with the fact that a vehicle on the forecourt is unroadworthy traders often claim that they would have repaired the vehicle or warned the customer about its condition before a sale was made. That is clearly unsatisfactory, and I believe that the new clause will help to remedy that problem.
The new clause provides that, where an unroadworthy vehicle is exposed for sale—for example, on a garage forecourt—the trader must prove that he has taken all reasonable steps to make potential purchasers aware that its use in its current condition on a road in Great Britain would be unlawful. One way of doing that would be for the trader to put warnings, in the form of notices, on each vehicle. However, we do not intend to prescribe exactly how that requirement should be satisfied; it will be for the courts to determine on the facts of each case.
In the case of an offer for sale, which is directed at an individual rather than at the world at large, the trader would have to prove that he has taken all reasonable steps to make that person aware of the facts. The new requirements will apply only to those who deal in vehicles in the course of a trade or business, which is where the major problem lies.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: As with much of the Bill, Opposition Members are happy to support the Government in introducing measures that are clearly designed to help with the safety of people driving on our roads and the standard of vehicles.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

DISAPPLICATION OF RTA SECTIONS 1 to 3 FOR AUTHORISED MOTORING EVENTS

'.After section 13 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted—

"Disapplication of sections 1 to 3 for authorised motoring events.

13A.—(1) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under sections 1, 2 or 3 of this Act by virtue of driving a vehicle in a public place other than a road if he shows that he was driving in accordance with an authorisation for a motoring event given under regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) Regulations under this section may in particular—

(a) prescribe the persons by whom, and limit the circumstances in which and the places in respect of which, authorisations may be given under the regulations;
(b) specify conditions which must be incorporated in authorisations;
(c) provide for authorisations to cease to have effect in prescribed circumstances;
(d) provide for the procedure to be followed, the particulars to be given, and the amount of any fees to be paid, in connection with applications for authorisations;
(e) make different provisions for different cases.".'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 72, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
'( ) Any competitor in or official of a motor sport event licensed by an appropriate body approved by the Secretary of State shall not be treated as being in a public place whilst taking part in such an event.'.

Mr. Chope: The new clause was tabled in response to concern about the possible consequences for motor sports events of extending the scope of the bad driving offences in the Bill to public places other than roads.
It is desirable in principle that the laws relating to dangerous driving should be extended to public places, but motor sports events give rise to several questions. Where motor sports events such as rallies take place on the road, the Road Traffic Acts do and should apply. Nothing in the Bill affects race tracks such as Silverstone or Brands Hatch, to which the Road Traffic Acts have never applied. The events with which we are concerned are time trials and similar rally stages organised in areas such as Forestry Commission land, where spectators can move freely throughout the area in which the rally is taking place. The


tracks on which the events take place are likely, in such circumstances, to come within the definition of "public place".
No one is suggesting that it is right for rally drivers to drive irresponsibly but the manner of driving and the state of the vehicles being driven in off road events is such that they cannot properly be judged by the same criteria as driving on the public highway. It is right, therefore, that such events should be treated differently and that the provisions of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 should not apply.
I hope that the House will accept the new clause and that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley will seek to withdraw his amendment, as the present proposal goes rather wider.

Mr. Gary Waller: I thank my hon. Friend for listening so carefully to what was said in Committee. The Royal Automobile Club and many of my hon. Friends were concerned at the risk that would have been posed to motor sports had the Bill remained unamended. We warmly appreciate the change that my hon. Friend has brought about, and I thank him for it.

Question put and agreed to

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12

VARIABLE SPEED LIMITS

'. In section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits on roads other than restricted roads), for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—
(1) An order made under this subsection as respects any road may prohibit—

(a) the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order,
(b) the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding that specified in the order during periods specified in the order, or
(c) the driving of motor vehicles on that road at a speed exceeding the speed for the time being indicated by traffic signs in accordance with the order.
(1A) An order made by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above may—

(a) make provision restricting the speeds that may be indicated by traffic signs or the periods during which the indications may be given, and
(b) provide for the indications to be given only in such circumstances as may be determined by or under the order;
but any such order must comply with regulations made under subsection (1B) below, except where the Secretary of State authorises otherwise in a particular case.
(1B) The Secretary of State may make regulations governing the provision which may be made by orders of local authorities under subsection (1)(c) above, and any such regulations may—

(a) prescribe the circumstances in which speed limits may be imposed by or under an order,
(b) prescribe the speed limits which may be specified in an order, and
(c) make transitional provision and different provision for different cases.".'.—[Mr. Chope]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 92, 93 and 95.

Mr. Chope: As I said in Committee, we have been considering the possibility of taking powers to enable a more flexible approach to speed limits. This new clause is intended to give mandatory force to variable speed limits that are indicated by traffic signs. It will provide both the Secretary of State and local authorities with a new, additional power to enable them to introduce variable speed limits.
The idea arose from the Department's M25 review, and was originally recommended by the consultants as a means of improving traffic flow at peak periods. However, I believe that there may well be much wider benefits to be gained from having enforceable variable speed limits in other circumstances. It would be reasonable to enforce lower speed limits on motorways when there were adverse weather conditions or when a major accident had occurred. That would, however, require signs that complied with existing requirements—that is, with a red outer ring—and these could be introduced only when the technology had been developed and was in place.
Another, equally important, area of application is local roads, where lower speed limits may be beneficial at certain times of the day to protect vulnerable road users, such as children or pedestrians. A good example is outside a school on a busy road, where it might be appropriate, depending on local conditions, to introduce a lower speed limit, which would apply when children were entering or leaving school. We would need to design and to implement such schemes carefully, to ensure that they operated satisfactorily and were cost-effective in reducing casualties.
This new power would, I believe, give us the opportunity to develop a more flexible approach to speed limits, so that they might more closely reflect actual driving conditions.

Mr. Roger King: Does this new clause relate solely to the reduction of speed limits on a variable basis, or would it enable the Secretary of State to increase speed limits?

Mr. Chope: The new clause is drafted very widely. It is not envisaged that my right hon. and learned Friend would use the power to have speed limits higher than those that would normally apply.
I hope that the taking of this new power will be welcomed by the public at large. It would be a very useful additional tool in the range of measures that we have for improving road safety, particularly in relation to the more vulnerable road users.

Ms. Ruddock: There is grave anxiety among Opposition Members that the measure could be used to allow increased speed limits. I do not think that the Minister's answer was absolutely clear. My understanding of what he said is that an increase would be possible. I think the Government share our concern that higher speed leads, if not to more accidents, certainly to more severe injuries resulting from collision. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that it is not the Government's intention to use a measure of this kind, which could very sensibly be used to lower speed limits, to take account, say, of roadworks or of accidents, for the purpose of increasing speed limits. It would be quite inappropriate to increase speed limits by the back door.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The Minister has mentioned the part that could be played by parents. I think that schools were mentioned. In Committee, I referred very briefly to a case in which, following an increase in the speed limit outside a school from 30 mph to 40 mph at certain times of the day, a child who stepped out from behind a tree was killed. I wonder whether road signs that specify 30 or 40 mph will cause confusion among parents. Would it not be possible to stick to 30 mph on roads outside schools?

Mr. Chope: At present, the standard procedure is to have speed limits that apply at all hours of the day and night. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that in certain circumstances—especially when children are going to or coming from school—extra care should be exercised by drivers, and that there is a case for having a lower speed limit then than at other times of the day or night. We are including the new power in the Bill to make available the necessary flexibility.

Mr. Fearn: At present, local authorities install flashing lights outside every school to let drivers know that they should slow down. The warning continues during the period in which the children are on their way to and from school, and seems to be quite effective. If we introduce a different system which varies the speed limit between 30 and 40 mph, it could lead to confusion.

Mr. Chope: I am sorry that the hon.Gentleman thinks that there will be confusion. I hope that most hon. Members will consider that this important new power will increase the ability to be flexible. I am not prescribing the circumstances in which the power should be used.
As for the question of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), the power cannot be used to override existing speed limits. We do not need primary legislation to do that. As I shall say during a later debate to be initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), the power already exists through secondary legislation to alter speed limits.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

DESIGNATION OF PRINCIPAL ROUTES

'(1) The Metropolitan Police may apply to the Secretary of State to make regulations to designate a trunk road or a designated road as a principal route.

(2) Before making an application to the Secretary of State the Metropolitan Police shall consult—

(a) the London authorities through which the road passes; and
(b) London Regional Transport.'.—[Mr. Tracey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tracey: I beg to move, That the new clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments. No. 1, in clause 56, page 50, line 27, after 'it', insert
'makes any regulations as to waiting or loading (except where these are on a priority route as designated under section 35 of this Act or are on a road designated as a Principal Route) or'.
No. 2, in line 33, after 'it', insert
'makes any regulations as to waiting or loading (except where these are on a priority route as designated under section 35 of this Act or are on a road designated as a Principal Route) or'.

No. 3, in clause 57, line 35, after 'vehicle', insert
'in a road subject to waiting and loading regulations (except where these are on a road designated as a priority route under section 35 of this Act or are on a road designated as a Principal Route) or is'.
No. 4, in line 45, after 'to', insert
'waiting or loading or to'.

Mr. Tracey: The new clause represents a further stage of the discussions that took place in Committee. Both sides of the Committee were in total agreement and I assume that, this afternoon, both sides of the House will agree that the question of parking enforcement—particularly on single and double yellow lines—has raised many problems in London. The London boroughs, represented by the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities, feel that enforcement is not being adequately carried out.
The Bill makes various changes and proposes new powers of enforcement in areas covered by parking meters and residents' parking permits. As we said in Committee, Londoners are concerned about the further issue of enforcing parking restrictions on yellow lines. At present, enforcement is dealt with by the Metropolitan police and traffic wardens. It is widely accepted—not only by local authorities and Members of the House but also by many police officers, from the rank of superintendent downwards—that an inadequate job is being done.
Police officers and those who control traffic wardens recognise that their numbers are inadequate. They enforce the law and protect the citizen in relation to matters that are certainly much graver and weightier than the infringement of parking regulations. It is to the benefit of all of us—whether we work in commerce or transport authorities or are private citizens—that parking should be controlled and enforced. We do not want people to park illegally or illicitly in our streets, preventing buses and private cars from passing freely through the streets.
4.30 pm
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic began to say that the Government would be prepared to accept some amendments to the proposed legislation in relation to London. Following that undertaking a number of us thought that it would be sensible to seek further amendments. The new clause specifically calls for the Metropolitan police to apply to the Secretary of State for regulations allowing them to enforce parking on the main trunk roads and those which, under the Bill, will be designated as principal, or red, routes.
We understand perfectly well that the police require the power to enforce regulations on main roads, so that they retain major powers over the movement of traffic in the capital city, but we believe, and we made it clear in Committee, that on side roads and more minor roads it makes sense for the enforcement powers of the police to be transferred to local authorities. The local authority associations have told the Government that they are prepared to take on enforcement powers across the board for parking on yellow lines and parking meters and where residents' parking permits apply.
The new clause meets the desire of the police to retain powers on main roads, but provides the sensible solution of transferring the rest of the enforcement powers to local authorities. That would also remove the frustration felt by London borough authorities and the public's inevitable confusion. It is ridiculous that districts in our capital


should be controlled by double or single yellow lines yet we all see that those regulations are constantly not enforced, whether for good reasons or not.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister give further consideration to the new clause, and the amendments associated with it? Will he agree to the sensible suggestion of allowing reason to prevail, so that the powers for controlling most of the capital's roads are transferred to local authorities?

Mr. John Bowis: I support the spirit of the new clause, but shall wait to see whether its exact wording is the best way forward. I am sure that the intention behind it is right. I entirely agree on the need for the Metropolitan police to have responsibility for enforcing red routes and strategic routes. Equally, I entirely agree that something has gone sadly astray in the enforcing of other parking regulations, both permitted parking and illegal parking.
My constituents are frustrated for two reasons—first, because cars wrongly parked outside their homes are not moved. Secondly, they become frustrated when they are penalised, because their own cars, which are perhaps illegally but not obstructively parked, are towed away. The new clause seeks to put right such inadequacies of enforcement and promote greater sensitivity among the enforcers. When I received many complaints from my constituents about the way in which parking regulations and tow-away vehicles were operated, I went out with my tow-away crew. While I was with the crew that was organised by the local police station, I saw a degree of sensitivity and understanding in the way that parking was enforced. But we soon started to receive calls asking why we had towed away vehicles from outside, for example, the doctor's surgery. The crew were immediately able to say, "That was not us. It was the team that came out, on spec, from Scotland Yard."
That was an example of the police operating without local knowledge and causing aggravation to local residents. The new clause would put that right and would stop the nonsense that occurs when one authority enforces parking regulations on a parking bay, on a parking meter or on residents' parking places, which are next to yellow lines that are enforced by a different authority. In such circumstances, the vehicle can move from one to the other and escape whichever authority happens to be monitoring that strip of road at the time.
I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause, which would put some sense onto the parking regulations in London. That idea is supported by just about every London borough, and certainly by Wandsworth.

Sir Philip Goodhart: At the moment, there are a mere 1,400 traffic wardens in London, and they will be needed to concentrate on the red routes and on the main routes. The London boroughs must be given powers to enforce yellow line and parking restrictions. I am sure that the Government will respond to that issue but, when they do, we may be left in a curious position. The London boroughs will be responsible for yellow lines, but local authorities outside London will not be responsible for parking issues. It would be sensible to include in the Bill powers to give local authorities outside London the power to handle parking.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I agree with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), and I add my support to that given by other

hon. Friends who represent London boroughs. I have no doubt that the Minister has listened carefully. He and his officials also listened carefully in Committee and gave us some encouragement to believe that the proposals which are all-party proposals, would be seriously considered. We shall look forward to what he has to say.
If the Bill were passed unamended, we should be in the ludicrous position of having traffic wardens to police yellow lines, the police to police moving traffic offences and local authority traffic attendants to look after parking bays. That would increase the cost of regulating traffic and parking in London, which would be foolish. The new clause would overcome that and would provide local control of parking which was sensitive to local needs but still allowed the police to keep traffic moving on our major roads.
Careful thought must be given to what is a major road and to whether, in the future, boroughs should also be allowed to control parking on the principal red routes. In view of the way in which the boroughs operate, it may be worth while for the Government to consider adding powers to the Bill when it goes to another place to enable Ministers to make changes in the future without having to introduce primary legislation.
There is also concern about who should police parking on the pavements in London. Perhaps the Minister could consider that issue as well as the problem of parking on cycleways. As an occasional cyclist, I find that it is a problem when cars are parked there and one has to pull out into the main carriageway. There is some confusion about who should be enforcing the cycleways.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: In principle, many people in London will see merit in the new clause. I may be the only hon. Member present who was not a member of the Committee, so I was not entirely privy to the discussions there.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: That applies to me as well.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, that may be true of other colleagues.
I hope that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) will ensure that the proposals are comprehensive and complete when he—or the Minister—replies. In principle, all London boroughs favour the proposal. However, I am not clear about some points, and it may be as well to make clear, in the few columns of Hansard that this short debate will fill, any changes in the responsibility for the funding and running of traffic wardens.
Local authorities deal with meters and with residential parking. I know that traffic wardens are centrally organised, as a sub-organisation, by the Metropolitan police and that the Metropolitan police operate the tow-aways in some areas. That has recently been extended. It would be ridiculous to have a triple-tiered structure. Perhaps we shall hear more about cost, and about the recruitment and running of traffic wardens. Although there would be some merit in the control of and discretion given to traffic wardens being in the hands of the boroughs, the central organisation, making available the training and organising, might not be a Londonwide service under borough control.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) made a suggestion about the control of red routes. I do not want to trespass on further debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must say that there may be some merit in that. The red


routes will be controversial, as are some of the restrictions on the principal roads. Newham way in my constituency is at least a three-lane fast road in each direction. In one place, there is a fourth lane with a single yellow line. There is a doctor's surgery there, and residents have also been in the habit of parking there. They do not cause an obstruction or any change in the flow of traffic, they do not provide a hazard for most of the length, yet they are subject to raids by traffic wardens or by the police. I get letters about that. It is nonsense.
There is one power for operating enforcement and another for the designation of a yellow line, a double yellow line or a red route. We shall discuss the designation of red routes later. Under the new clause, would the responsibility for the designation and distinction between single and double yellow lines be in the hands of the borough or of a wider authority?

Mr. Chope: It is obvious that there is much common sense behind the contributions in this short debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for the constructive way in which they addressed the issues in Committee and for the way in which they have carried forward the debate. As I said in Committee, I have considerable sympathy with the principles underlying the new clause and the associated amendments. I told the Committee that the Government were considering what provisions would be needed to allow for a wider measure of local authority responsibility for enforcing parking controls beyond those already provided for in the Bill. I also said that I had it in mind that local authority parking attendants could be responsible for enforcing almost all parking regulations within particular designated areas within controlled parking zones. I am able to tell the House that we have developed the outline of a suitable scheme and will be bringing forward Government amendments in the other place.
The principles of the scheme are that there will be a further rationalisation of the distinction between illegal or "prohibited" parking controls and "permitted" parking controls and the arrangements for enforcing them. This further rationalisation acknowledges the strategic importance of traffic flow on main roads and the responsibilities of the local authorities to their residents.
The fundamental underlying point is that, in London, the police are responsible for the day-to-day management of traffic flow and have specific responsibilities for security control, emergencies and ceremonial occasions. To fulfil those responsibilities, it is important that they are able to control strategic traffic flows on the main arteries and certain roads serving them. It is, therefore, proposed that illegal parking on and adjacent to those arteries will continue to attract criminal sanctions and will be enforced by the police and their traffic wardens. Off the main arteries, traffic and parking has fewer strategic implications, but raises heightened environmental and residential issues, so it is proposed that most illegal parking in those areas—except for endorsable offences—will be decriminalised and enforced by the local authorities.
4.45 pm
It will be for the local authorities to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport to establish "designated" parking areas in their boroughs. In those areas, most non-endorsable illegal parking offences will be decriminalised. The offences to he decriminalised will include waiting, loading, unloading and delivery prohibitions and

restrictions, parking controls at bus stops, pavement parking and breaches of the commercial vehicle overnight waiting ban. The new system of penalty charges will be applied to those breaches and they will be enforced by the local authorities, which will have extended powers to wheel-clamp and remove vehicles contravening the new controls.
It will also be for the local authorities to propose the extent of the "designated" parking areas. The areas might begin in controlled parking zones, but they could also cover other areas. The Secretary of State will need to be satisfied with the proposals because there will be traffic and safety implications. He will need to be sure that local authorities are able to take on the new responsibilities and to arrange a smooth transition to avoid any major problems or disruption. He will consult the police about the proposals. When he is satisfied with them, he will make orders bringing the "designated" parking areas into force and subsequently extending them as required. In practice, there will be a link between the introduction of the new system of "permitted" parking and the designation of "designated" parking areas.
Further consideration will be given to the way in which the former illegal parking controls are marked and signed in the "designated" parking areas. For example, yellow lines have a specific force in law under the Traffic Signs Regulations 1981, and it may be necessary for the waiting and loading prohibitions to be marked in a different colour where the offences are decriminalised.
The police will retain overriding powers for use against parked vehicles anywhere in London where security or other policing issues are involved. They will be responsible for enforcing all parking controls on the main arteries other than those associated with "permitted" parking. Contravention of those controls will remain criminal offences. The main arteries will include priority routes and some other roads as well. The precise selection of roads will be a matter for discussion between the local authorities, the police and the Secretary of State.
In "designated" parking areas off the main arteries, the police will continue to enforce endorsable parking offences, such as parking on a pedestrian crossing and dangerous parking, and will retain the power to deal with vehicles causing an obstruction.
The aim of the scheme is to improve the arrangements for enforcing parking controls in London in a way which reflects the prime nature of the controls and the primary traffic interests of the police and the local authorities. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friends and, indeed, the whole House to the extent that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) will feel able to withdraw the new clause, which puts the onus on the police to apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have said that, in the Government's view, the presumption should be that the police would be responsible for enforcement on main routes and that local authorities will be able to apply if they wish to take over the burden of enforcement on the other routes. Our open debate on the issue shows the value of a constructive Committee.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister clarify the matters of cost and of traffic wardens? Do I take it that the cost of policing the new local authority-controlled areas will he borne by the local authorities in a manner that they can best achieve? Obviously the cost cannot be met from parking meters. Will the Metropolitan police traffic


warden service be confined to the functions of the Metropolitan police, or will that service be made available—with or without a fee—to the local authorities?

Mr. Chope: The cost of enforcing the local authority-controlled areas will be borne by the local authorities. The local authorities have assured us that they can generate sufficient income from the penalties associated with enforcement to cover their costs. The zeal with which local authority parking attendants in Westminster carry out their responsibilities is clear. Westminster has a healthy surplus on its account.
The traffic warden service will continue to be the responsibility of, and funded by, the Metropolitan police. I have heard no suggestion that local authorities want to use traffic wardens on a contractual basis. There is more than enough work for traffic wardens on the main routes under the control of the Metropolitan police.

Mr. Fearn: The new clause is welcome, although I hope that we can have some clarification in another place if the new clause is withdrawn. Although the local authority and the police are involved, will the Secretary of State take the ultimate decision?

Mr. Chope: Yes indeed—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take the ultimate decision on applications.

Ms. Ruddock: We tabled amendments in Standing Committee to give boroughs powers to enforce yellow lines. We also tabled a new clause to create permitted parking zones. Therefore, we believe that we have contributed to the constructive discussion to which the Minister has referred.
We referred in Committee to the duplication of powers that would have to exist if the local authorities are to be responsible, as is made possible in the Bill, for the parking bays and meters, but cannot enforce the areas with yellow lines which so frequently occur between those bays.
We also referred to the fact that decriminalisation of certain offences already occurs in the Bill, and we therefore thought that the argument that those yellow lines had to be enforced by the police did not hold up. The Minister said in response to our argument in Committee that enforcement of prohibited parking offences must, as a matter of policy, remain with the police and the traffic warden service. However, he raised our hopes when he said that he would try to find some way to bring forward controlled parking zones and the designation of special parking areas.
We are more than delighted by the fact that the Minister seems to have listened to our pleas. The Association of London Authorities will also be delighted that at last the measure for which it has pressed for so long will, one hopes, find its way on to the statute book.
In Committee we referred to the fact that there are considerable problems of enforcement due primarily to attitudes within the police and to the scarcity of traffic wardens. We recorded that although traffic flows had increased dramatically in the past five years, the traffic warden service had decreased by 15 per cent. We are more than aware that effective enforcement requires transfer to the local authorities, which have such vested interests in enforcement that they will do it well. The Minister said

that the authorities would propose the extent of designated areas within the control zones under their influence and I am sure that those designated areas will be extensive.
We agree with the Minister and hope very much that there will be no proposal to reduce the present level of person power within the traffic warden service. We believe that much stricter enforcement is necessary. A reduction in numbers in the traffic warden service would have a deleterious effect on enforcement on the major routes and main arteries.
We are cheered by the fact that the measure will make progress. We support it and we congratulate the Minister on being so co-operative. However, it has been suggested that the yellow lines should adopt another hue—I believe that purple and blue have been suggested. I hope that the Minister will not make up his mind about that. Such a change might appear to be an unnecessary concession to opinions expressed by the police and the idea that they must hold on to control of yellow lines. Perhaps it would be more helpful to maintain yellow lines for all purposes so as to give a clear message to the public that yellow lines mean that they may not park at certain times in particular areas. I urge the Minister not to have a set mind about the colour of those lines under the new arrangements.

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend the Minister must surely believe that he has got off to rather a good start in terms of the unanimous approval of the new clause.

Ms. Ruddock: Not for long.

Mr. Tracey: Well, he has it at this stage anyway.
My hon. Friend the Minister has closely met the spirit of the new clause and the associated amendments. We will read my hon. Friend's detailed comments when we receive the Official Report tomorrow. The Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association will also examine his comments closely before the Bill moves to another place. Naturally we want to consider the details that my hon. Friend has given us today and other details that presumably we will be given in another place. Obviously, the details of the amendment to the legislation will have to be scrutinised closely.
I am particularly interested in the definition of a main road or route that will still be controlled by the police and traffic wardens. I will also be interested to examine my hon. Friend the Minister's wording with regard to enforcement in relation to parking on footways. A number of my colleagues and I raised in Committee the serious problem of inadequate enforcement of controls on parking on footways which can be very dangerous. There is an additional anomaly in that, until now, only the police have been able properly to enforce controls on heavy vehicles parked on footways—a practice that is completely unacceptable to all citizens in London.
I will be very interested to learn how far the Government are prepared to develop the idea of orders giving the local London authorities the power to enforce things other than yellow line parking and parking bays. My hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), also referred to boroughs enforcing rules on parking on red routes.
We have made considerable progress today towards good reason and common sense prevailing over what was previously apparent bureaucratic intransigence. That spirit has been welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. I give thanks for the co-operation that we and the London


authorities have received from officials at the Department of Transport and at the Home Office as this issue also involves the police.
I look forward to the Government's proposals being introduced in another place. In the light of all that we have heard, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

RANDOM BREATH TESTING AT ROADSIDE CHECKPOINTS

'In subsection 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be
inserted after subsection (2) the following subsections:—

"(2A) The Secretary of State may make provisions, by regulations which shall be subject to approval by each House of Parliament, for roadside checks at which either all vehicles or a sample of vehicles may be stopped by a constable in uniform under section 163 of this Act for the purpose of administering breath tests to their drivers at or near the place where such vehicles are stopped to ascertain whether any offence has been committed under section 4 or 5 of this Act.
(2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) above shall provide for any roadside check under subsection (2A) above to be authorised in writing by a senior police officer and for the display of signs making the purpose of the check clear to road users and for the maintenance of records of the authorisation and of the location, date and time of such checks.
(2C) Regulations under subsection (2A) shall be made by the Secretary of State for the 'Home Department in relation to England and Wales and by the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to Scotland.
(2D) The Secretary of State shall consult chief officers of police and other organisations on a Code of Practice for the detailed operation of roadside checks carried out in accordance with the Regulations under subsection (2A).".'.—[Ms. Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5 Pm

Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As hon. Members have said, we began this afternoon's debate in considerable harmony, but I fear that I am about to change the mood somewhat. However, I rise to move the Second Reading of the new clause, conscious of the fact that the majority of hon. Members support its provisions. They and I believe that introducing random breath testing should be one of our highest priorities for road safety in this country. The new clause commands all-party support.
However, sadly for all those who are affected by the actions of drunk drivers, I fear that the new clause may not succeed. I understand that the Government have imposed a three-line Whip despite the strong support for the new clause among their own Back Benchers, and despite the many requests that a free vote should be allowed to enable hon. Members to vote according to their consciences. I can assure the House that a free vote has been granted for Labour Members. We cannot help but suspect that the Government knew that they would be defeated on a free vote.
Tonight, hon. Members could act in concert to introduce a measure that is supported by over 70 per cent. of the population but, because of the Government's intransigence, I suspect that they will be prevented from doing so. I hope that many Conservative Members will feel

able to show the Government by their votes tonight that they are not to be bullied into rejecting this important measure.
The list of organisations that support random breath testing is impressively long. It includes not only the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety, to which I pay tribute for its persistent and excellent work in this area, but the British Medical Association, the Consumers Association, the Campaign against Drinking and Driving, Alcohol Concern, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain, and the County Road Safety Officers Association, to name but a few.
Public support for random breath testing has been consistently strong.

Mr. Conal Gregory: The hon. Lady is making a good and telling point early in the debate. Does she know of any agency that supports the Minister's view?

Ms. Ruddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and confirm what I suspect he thinks—I know of no agency that supports the Government's view——

Mr. Chope: What about the Royal Automobile Club?

Ms. Ruddock: The Minister will have an opportunity to list his own supporters when he makes his speech.

Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the RAC is in favour of the Government's view on this matter?

Mr. Joseph Ashton: What about the police?

Ms. Ruddock: I have not received any communication from the RAC to suggest that position. If the Minister has such a testimony, I am sure that he will use it in support of his own case when he makes it.
I repeat that public support for random breath testing has been consistently strong. Over the past three years, seven surveys have shown more than 70 per cent. public support for it, including a survey conducted last November by the Government's own transport and road research laboratory. A survey last March by the Harris research centre showed that drinking and driving is among the top three offences that people felt should be given priority by the police. By contrast, fewer than 50 per cent. of the police who were interviewed thought that it deserved priority attention.
In Committee, when we were discussing a similar amendment, the Minister suggested that random breath testing would involve too much police time and too many resources when the incidence of criminal behaviour in other areas is increasing. However, about 800 deaths a year are caused by drink driving. Surely, that number is serious enough to make this issue a priority for police resources. If those 800 drink-drive deaths were perceived as 800 murders, as they frequently are by the bereaved, surely they would be a police priority.

Mr. Ashton: Does that figure of 800 deaths represent deaths caused by drivers who have been drinking, or drink-related accidents which, in many cases, mean that perfectly sober drivers have knocked down a drunk who was coming out of a pub and who stood in front of their car? There is a difference in those statistics. Will my hon. Friend make the statistics clear?

Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his point, but I see from frantic signs on the Conservative Front Bench below the Gangway that another hon. Member wishes to enlighten him on that point.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not know whether it will enlighten hon. Members, but a casualty report has shown that, in 1988, there were 840 deaths where the driver or motor cycle rider had an illegal level of alcohol in his blood. The dead drunk pedestrians come on top of that.

Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful for the help that I am being given, but I am under no illusion that that assistance will continue.
Like the whole House, I am deeply concerned by the fact that 800 deaths per year arise from drink-drive offences. The public understand that that should be a major priority for our police forces. I suggest that they will not understand any rejection of these provisions today, especially given the fact that on the last occasion when a similar proposal was tested in the House, on a ten-minute Bill that was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), it was supported by 165 votes to 49. Does the House really want to give an entirely contradictory message today?

Mr. Ashton: Yes.

Ms. Ruddock: Returning to the new clause, its purpose is to insert into the Bill a clear and straightforward procedure to enable the police to carry out random breath testing. It would authorise the Secretary of State to make regulations for roadside checks to be carried out by the police at which either all vehicles or a sample may be stopped for the purpose of administering a breath test to the driver. The new clause states that the purpose of the checkpoint must be clearly signposted and authorised in writing by a senior police officer. The proposed subsection (2D) authorises the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice for the operation of the roadside checks.
The Minister suggested in Committee that such provisions would still require the police to suspect that a driver had been drinking before they could breath-test him. I am happy to assure the House that I have taken further expert advice and feel sure that the Minister was mistaken.

Mr. Paul Channon: The hon. Lady mentioned sampling a moment ago. What does she mean by "sampling"? Under her new clause, would the police be entitled to stop all young people, for example, or all women or all men? How does sampling work? I had thought that random breath testing would have to involve everyone.

Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for posing those questions, because we are very clear in our minds about what we mean. I believe that there is a scientific definiton of "random". It has to be proved that it is truly random. Testing can be random if every passing car is stopped for the obvious reason that no-one knows into which category the driver of that vehicle may fall. Testing can also be shown to be random if, for example, every 10th vehicle is stopped because, by the same token, the person stopping that vehicle could not have anticipated whether its driver was young, old, female or black. That is random. That, indeed, is the purpose

behind this new clause. We are clear and we have checked extremely carefully with several authorities that our new clause truly offers the opportunity for random, accountable and controlled breath testing.
The case for random testing has been made many times, and undoubtedly it will be made many times again today. I make no apology for repeating some of the arguments. It is true that there has already been a gradual reduction in the number of accidents resulting from drinking and driving. That can be attributed to several factors, including publicity campaigns and changing the public's perception. But we cannot afford to be complacent about our rate of progress. Research suggests that one in 50 drivers at any one time is over the prescribed limit.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is not that one in 50 at pub closing time on Thursday, Friday and Saturday night, not at any one time?

Ms. Ruddock: I shall look into that. I have taken on trust the information that I have been given. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, the information comes from an expert source. I have no reason to question it. If the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is certain of his facts, I am prepared to accept that. It does not alter in any significant way the case that I make. It is obvious that a substantial number of people in Britain are prepared to say when questioned that they have driven when they believed that they were over the limit.

Mr. Bowis: Does the hon. Lady agree that, where recent campaigns against drinking and driving have been successful, it appears that it was because the public perception that there was already a degree of random testing? When I talk to my local police they say, not that they do not want to enforce the law against drinking and driving but that they already have adequate laws to enforce. Will the hon. Lady explain what is lacking in the law that persuades her that we need to strengthen it through the measure that she proposes?

Ms. Ruddock: I am happy to do that. I shall come to those arguments in a moment. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the public perceive that there is already a degree of random testing. He will also acknowledge that the public have become aware through reports that such testing is carried out by certain police forces but that in other areas it does not happen. Therefore, if there is any deterrent value in random testing, as I believe that there is, it is not available uniformly, even through the present system. As I shall explain in a moment, the present system is not the same as random breath testing, as proposed in the new clause.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I have great sympathy with the idea of random breath testing, not least because anything that can be done to stop drinking and driving must be done. But the hon. Lady implied in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that she would want directly to interfere with the operational decisions of individual police forces by compelling them to operate random breath testing on the basis that she suggests. My police force in Sussex has advised me that it has all the powers that it needs in practice to stop motorists whenever it wishes.

Ms. Ruddock: If the measure became law, it would be apparent to police forces everywhere that the procedure was better in that it was clearer. It provides one power that could be used to establish random breath testing whereas at present, as I have promised to describe, the police rely on two powers and seek to combine them to create a type of random testing which we believe is inadequate.
We do not suggest that police throughout the country will have to undertake testing. We seek to provide powers for them to do so. We believe that there is such tremendous public support for the measure that police forces will wish uniformly to use the new powers made available by the House.

Mr. Rupert Allason: There is public support for hanging, but we do not have hanging.

Ms. Ruddock: Let me continue with my argument. We are talking about what we believe are the preventable deaths of up to 800 people per year. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) does himself and the House no favours by bringing hanging into the debate.
Lest hon. Members fail to keep figures in their minds, let me repeat that about 800 deaths and up to 22,000 injuries per annum are caused by drinking and driving.

Mr. Ashton: How many deaths occur on the roads which are not drink-related?

Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend asks a fair question. There are about 5,000 deaths in road accidents per year in Britain. That figure is far too high, and the deaths occur through a variety of causes. However, I remind my hon. Friend that a single cause accounts for 800 deaths and 22,000 accidents resulting in casualties. That is the subject of our debate tonight. I believe that the House treats the subject with great seriousness and that, if there is anything that we can do to reduce the figure by 15 per cent., 5 per cent. or even 0·5 per cent. we should carefully consider it.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I have been following the hon. Lady with great care and great interest. She used the words, "if there is anything that we can do" and "if there is something that we can do". I have argued on the Floor of the House on many occasions that modern technology provides a complete solution to drinking and driving. There is something and there is anything. If the Government so chose, every motor vehicle could be required by law to be equipped with a device which made it impossible to drive it if the driver was over the prescribed limit, whatever that might be.
Does the Labour party support that? If so, we are at one in our objective and at one on the method. New clause 2 takes an entirely vindictive approach, but we should seek a solution. The solution is available. There is a variety of methods. The technology is available. If, as my new clause suggests, we encouraged the public to be fully aware of whether they were near the limit, drinking and driving would be reduced. Experience in Australia shows that the massive reductions achieved were largely attributable to that approach.

Sir Bernard Braine: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. One intervention at a time, please.

Ms. Ruddock: I fear that I am in great danger of being distracted from my speech, but I am willing to give way to the Father of the House.

Sir B. Braine: Is there not a device for overcoming the dreadful problem of deaths and injuries on the roads which is much simpler than that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), whose knowledge of modern technology no one would dispute? The solution is that people must be deterred to the point where it becomes the natural thing not to get into a car when one has been drinking. Either one does not drink or one does not drive.

Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for their interventions. I assume that they will seek to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They will make their own speeches which, of course, will contribute greatly to our discussions.

Mr. John Prescott: They should vote in the Lobby with us.

Ms. Ruddock: Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says, hopefully they will vote in the Lobby with us tonight.
We need to do more work to reduce the level of deaths and injuries caused by drinking and driving. Those of us who are in favour of random breath testing believe that efforts must be directed at changing the perception of drivers of the risk of being caught. In Britain that perception is still low; 42 per cent. of drivers admitting to drink-driving believe that the risk of getting caught is small. Clearly, we need to increase the deterrent as well as continue to detect offenders.
Countries which have introduced random breath testing believe that it has been successful in heightening drivers' perception of the risk of being caught, and that it has made a major contribution to reducing the number of deaths and accidents on the road. I acknowledge that overseas comparisons are difficult because of different systems, legal alcohol limits and procedures. Nevertheless, experience in New South Wales, which still has a higher accident rate due to drink-driving that we do, and in Sweden and Finland, which have lower rates at 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. respectively of all deaths, shows that random breath testing works.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The last time I looked at the Swedish figures, they were counting only the accidents on which they had done an analysis; they estimated that there were twice as many as those whom they caught. Therefore, the Swedish figure may be the same as that for Britain. That needs checking, but that is my research.
My question may be technical. Over the years, we have had estimates of the number of lives that would be saved if we had random breath testing or what is proposed in the new clause, which is not what the Association of Chief Police Officers wants. Has the hon. Lady any estimate of how many lives might be saved if we introduced the new clause, gave unfettered discretion or introduced the mass random testing which they have in New South Wales?

Mr. Spearing: Fewer deaths.

Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful for the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr.


Spearing). If the public perceive the provision as a considerable deterrent, and if people are prepared to admit that they are drinking and driving because they feel that they will get away with it and not be detected, we have every reason in logic and in our knowledge of human behaviour to expect that they are more likely to curb their habit if they think that they are likely to be detected in a criminal offence. That being the case, we believe that there would be a fall in the number of accidents associated with drink driving if the provision were introduced.
Before I began this part of my speech, I acknowledged that it was difficult to make international comparisons, but we know from the subjective evidence, at least of those which have brought in such measures, that a fall in deaths and casualties due to drink driving has resulted from their introduction. That is good enough for me, and I believe that it is good enough for the majority of hon. Members. The research which would follow the introduction of the measure would show whether our case was proved. There is no evidence in this country—and there cannot be until the provision is introduced—but there is every reason in logic to believe that it would be effective. That is what the public at large—the people who would be affected—themselves believe.
I cannot give figures, but let me put it on record that I believe there would be a reduction in road deaths. That is what matters—that there should be a reduction of any kind and at any level, because any life saved as a consequence of new legislation is a life worth saving.
In Britain the current procedures are cumbersome and inefficient. When we discussed the matter in Committee, the provision was thought by the Minister to involve too much police time and resources. Chief police officers, who seek a form of randomised testing, have to use two procedures. That cannot in itself be helpful to their administration. It is not true to suggest that the police already have the power for random breath testing. Only by the use of two existing powers can the police do anything that corresponds to random testing. The police have the power to stop any vehicle at random. Under section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a constable may administer a breath test only if there is reasonable cause for suspicion that alcohol has been consumed.
We are seeking to give the police new powers to complement the existing powers. We are not seeking to remove any powers. The police could still stop any vehicle and, having stopped that vehicle, conduct a test if they had reasonable grounds for suspicion. In addition, the new clause would enable them to establish roadside check-points where they could administer truly random breath tests.
We must ensure that breath testing is conducted on a truly random basis to avoid any potential problems of the infringement of civil liberties.

Mr. Ashton: In 1986, Nottinghamshire police, who at Christmas have always breathalysed four or five times more drivers than police in any other county, got to the stage where they were breathalysing people who were queueing for petrol. The police were stopping long queues of cars at the side of the road to do, they said, checks on windscreen wipers, and then they breathalysed the drivers. There were strong rumours that policemen had been told

that they had a quota of 35 breathalyser tests a day. At the end of that tremendous purge in 1986, they did not catch any more motorists than they had ever done.

Ms. Ruddock: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it absolutely proves my case. My hon. Friend has given an example of an area which, in his view, was over-zealous in trying to introduce random testing. He acknowledges that it caused consternation among the public because the police were stopping people on one pretext, when he suggests that they were endeavouring to test them for drink-driving. It is clear to me that, because of what he says rather than in spite of it, we need the new clause.
We must ensure that breath testing is conducted on a truly random basis to avoid potential problems of the infringement of civil liberties or of any one group being singled out for testing. We do not support giving the police unfettered powers such as they have requested. Such discretion might lead to abuse or might be perceived to be discriminatory, thus undermining relations between police and public. Roadside checks are a guarantee of objectivity.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is disappointed that there was no detection of drink-driving as a result of a roadside check such as he described, that is not necessarily a problem to us. We are concerned about providing a deterrent. If the majority of people going through a roadside check are found on random breath testing not to be over the limit, it suggests to us that the deterrent of random breath testing is working.

Mr. Tracey: May I raise with the hon. Lady a question which I asked in Committee and which presumably she may now be able to answer? In order to carry out what she is suggesting, on behalf of the Labour party, how many extra tests and how many extra police officers or other officers of enforcement would be required, and what would be the cost of that operation? The House and the country should know those facts.

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman knows that, neither in Committee nor here, have I had the resources to prepare the answer to that question. If the authorities decided to adopt the proposal, they would have the ability to make the appropriate resources available. I have said repeatedly that the provision is not designed dramatically to increase detection rates but dramatically to increase deterrence.

Sir Bernard Braine: rose——

Ms. Ruddock: I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, having already delayed the House for a considerable time, and I am nearing the end of my remarks.
I am convinced that it is such a worthy proposal—I repeat, we are talking of the loss of 800 lives a year—that it would be appropriate to allocate the resources necessary to introduce the new deterrent element in an effort to persuade people to change habits that are still causing a significant loss of life through drink driving.
If the Government defeat the new clause and continue to set their face against what is clearly a majority view in the country, their road safety campaign will lose much of its force. We believe that random breath testing should be 


introduced without delay. In any event, we make the commitment to introduce it as a priority when we are in government, if the present Government fail to introduce it.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has an engaging manner, and in her closing words she came to the heart of the matter. On one side of the balance sheet is the question whether there is a case for a further deterrent. On the other side are 800 lives, fewer than the number killed some years ago, but still a considerable number.
I begin where the hon. Lady finished. I firmly believe that the new clause would greatly strengthen the capacity of part I of the Bill to deal with the still serious problem of drinking and driving and would thereby help to achieve the objective—with which I hope Members in all parts of the House agree—of reducing the toll of deaths and injuries on our roads.
The debate about random breath testing has gone on for many years. During that time, the figures have fluctuated, but more and more people, including children, have been killed and injured on our roads for various reasons, but one cause has clearly been the behaviour of drunken and irresponsible drivers. I guarantee that there is not a Member in the House who has not in the last year had an example—perhaps two or three—in his constituency of a child being killed wantonly by somebody out of control of the machine he was driving because he was under the influence of drink. I wonder how many Members have escaped the procession of relatives coming to one's constituency office asking for something to be done about this scandalous state of affairs.
As the hon. Member for Deptford said, the overwhelming majority of road safety organisations and the British public support the purpose of the new clause, and they, like many hon. Members, have become impatient with the Government's obdurate refusal to take the necessary action.
The arguments for random breath testing are well known, and I need not repeat them at length today. I shall make three points that go to the heart of the matter. The first concerns the confused and unsatisfactory nature of the existing law. Ministers often claim that random breath testing is unnecessary, because the police already have power to stop drivers at random, including stopping, them at roadside check points and breath testing those whom they suspect of having imbibed alcohol. Basically, that means the police officer engaging the driver in conversation so that he can form an opinion about whether he may have been drinking. This elaborate rigmarole takes time and is more likely to irritate the driver than the blow-and-go procedure of random testing proper.
The whole argument about random stopping seems odd for Ministers to employ, because it surrenders the main point at issue, which is the appropriateness and desirability of roadside checkpoints, the sole purpose of which is the breath-testing of motorists. The perversity of the existing law, and of Minister's arguments, is precisely that these concede the principle of random breath testing, but then allow it to be carried out only in a cumbersome and unsatisfactory way which is less effective than random breath testing proper and is more likely to alienate the travelling public.
That factor may help to explain why—as the House knows, I have had some connection for many years with senior police officers—some chief constables seem

reluctant to use these powers. Moreover, what I would describe as this poor man's version of random breath testing is made possible only by the use of two different sections of the Road Traffic Act, the combined use of which has never been explicitly affirmed or approved by the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who has had considerable experience of transport and road safety matters, said on Second Reading, this kind of equivocation is simply not good enough. As he said, if we want random tests, there should be clear provision for them in legislation, and that should be clear to the police and the public.
I shall not delay the House, because many hon. Members wish to speak. My second point concerns what appears to be one of the principal, though one of the silliest, arguments against random breath testing employed by its opponents. We have been told many times that random breath testing would not work because the number of over-the-limit drivers detected at roadside checkpoints would be so low that, to achieve the present level of convictions, the police would have to carry out millions of tests, which would represent a clear waste of resources. That argument was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), in an article entitled "Why random testing won't work", in the Evening Standard of 30 June 1988.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It appeared only in the racing edition. It was subsequently thrown out in favour of an article to save Elstree.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does my hon. Friend accept the statement made in the article:
With 300,000 tests a year, random breath testing might catch between 1,500 and 9,000 over-the-limit offenders. That figure compares badly with the 120,000 convictions secured by the police using their existing powers"?

Mr. Bottomley: If the article said that, it contained a misprint. In simple terms, to catch as many people by random breath testing against target testing, there would have to be as many tests in a week as there are now in a year.

Sir Bernard Braine: As we know, the figures have declined, partly as a result of campaigns that some of us have waged over the years about irresponsible drinking, in regard not only to driving but to everything else. One can make two statements, the first being that alcohol taken in moderation is a pleasant adjunct to living, makes for conviviality and friendliness, encourages conversation and so on. The second is that alcohol taken to excess shortens life, undermines health, is a potent cause of marital break-up, non-accidental injury to children, road deaths and injuries, and is found in practically every category of violent crime. If there has been an improvement in recent years it has been largely due to the campaign that some of us have waged to try to change public attitudes to drink. I am still engaged in that campaign.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am almost the Father of the House, and I take my hat off to the right hon. Gentleman for his lifelong campaign on this matter. However, I think he got hold of the wrong end of the stick when he alluded to alcohol making people feel pleasant. Alcoholics suffer from a major disease, and some such people fall to the floor and break limbs. That is not too pleasant.

Sir Bernard Braine: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I have been friends for many years. However, people who drive a motor car or any vehicle should not drink. The new clause seeks to increase the power of deterrence and to make people think twice or even three times before getting into a vehicle when they are under the influence of liquor.
The argument against the new clause is absurd, because it is based entirely on the bogus assumption that random breath-testing checkpoints would replace existing police activities rather than being an additional power used precisely for its deterrent effect. The hon. Member for Deptford spoke about that. Of course only a small proportion of drivers who are tested at roadside checkpoints are over the limit. Checkpoints are designed to be deterrents to drinking and driving, and if they did catch a large number of drinking drivers that would indicate not success but failure.
Thirdly, some hon. Members have spoken about the cost of random breath testing. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic estimated that the police costs of carrying out random breath testing would be about £12 million per annum. He added:
In essence, that would be money invested in abortive work because it would not result in more people being charged with drink-driving offences."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 22 January 1991; c. 167.]
Once again, the argument is confused. Despite the objective of deterrence, the failure of random breath testing in the Minister's eyes seems to be that it does not catch enough offenders. If my hon. Friend is to be consistent, he must presumably regard random breath testing as a failure, even in New South Wales. I understand that people in Australia have a great propensity to consume alcohol. Perhaps it is due to the climate.
The Federal Office of Road Safety reported in 1989, and stated:
Following the introduction of random breath testing there was … a sharp fall of about 30 per cent. from 1982 to 1983 in the number of proven drink driving offences, suggesting that ther may have been a very real drop in the incidence of drink driving.
My hon. Friend the Minister has his own view, but I think that most of us would welcome a reduction in the incidence of drinking and driving as a sign of success rather than failure. We would also welcome economic savings commensurate with those produced by random breath testing in New South Wales.
The same report also stated:
Federal Office of Road Safety data suggest an estimated net economic saving to the community of $169 million over the first three years of the operation of random breath testing in New South Wales.
I am not suggesting that it is possible to make simple comparisons between one country and another, and the hon. Member for Deptford did not fall into that trap either. We cannot expect savings directly proportional to those enjoyed by New South Wales. However, the Minister should not estimate the cost of random breath testing in this country without taking into account the likely economic benefits, because experience elsewhere suggests that one of the main advantages of random breath testing is precisely its cost-effectiveness. Even if it were to transpire that random breath testing costs us some money, it would still be worth the price. Indeed, what price should be placed on a human life wantonly destroyed by a drunken driver?

Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend speaks about price and mentions New South Wales. He will have seen most of the reports and figures that I have. Does he agree that the most significant cost saving occurred where self-breathalysers were introduced to all the service messes? In that case, the reduction, which may have been coupled with random breath testing outside, was about 80 per cent. A large percentage of that figure was considered to be due entirely to the fact that giving people the opportunity to find out whether they would be dangerous on the road in itself made a large contribution to the results.

Sir Bernard Braine: I always listen to my hon. Friend with the greatest attention, because he is careful about the facts that he adduces. He seeks to reinforce my argument. Any device or propaganda or legislation which increases deterrence and makes it less likely that somebody will get into a car and behave in a way that will destroy life or injure somebody must be right.
The intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) during the speech of the hon. Member for Deptford is worthy of study, although I do not think that the hon. Lady took up his suggestion. It is not the first time that my hon. Friend has imparted wisdom to the House, and I hope that everyone will listen to him more carefully in future. The first person to whom he should talk is the Minister.
Like other hon. Members, I have received a letter from a Mr. John Knight, co-founder of the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. He enclosed photographs of some of the innocent victims of drinking drivers, and I wish that every hon. Member could see those photographs before entering the Division Lobby tonight. Some of them depict the happy, bright-eyed faces of young children who are full of the joy of life, a life that was shortly to be extinguished by an accident that could have been prevented, at a cost, we are told, of a mere £12 million a year.
For those children it will be too late, but it is not too late for the House to take a step that would save many other lives. The great majority of our constituents—perhaps I should say the great majority of our constituents, because I cannot speak for other hon. Members—wish us to take that step. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the arguments and let those of us who have a conscience on this matter vote freely.

Mr. Ashton: Unfortunately, all too often in debates such as this we hear arguments from hon. Members who are not so much against drink-driving as against drink. Hon. Members who feel that way should be honest and say so. There is nothing wrong with people saying that they are against drink or that they are abstainers who believe that drink should be abolished. If people did that, at least we would know where we stand. I am against smoking and I am a member of the Committee examining the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill. I do not try to stop people smoking cigarettes. I use statistics in my arguments, and they show that 100,000 people die every year from smoking. Perhaps 1 per cent. of them die from secondary inhalation. That is 1,000 people—more than the 800 we are debating—but I am not aware of any big campaign against it.
I do not propose to blind the House with statistics, but I should like to examine some of the facts and figures.

Ms. Ruddock: I hope that my hon. Friend is not implying that those of us who are so enthusiastically moving the new clause—this is certainly true in my case—are abstainers or would seek to ban all alcohol or dissuade people in a general sense from taking alcohol with it is safe to do so. It would also be wrong to imply that I am not concerned about the hazards of smoking and that we have not done our best to campaign against that as well.

Mr. Ashton: That is not the case that I am making. I was trying to weigh one campaign against another.
Last week, the EC reported on the annual cost of road accidents. It said:
The UK death rate from road accidents is just under half the EC average.
It is about time that we started giving drivers some credit for the fact that, year after year, our roads become safer and safer. If my hon. Friend were to compare the number of vehicles on the roads in the 1960s and the number of deaths from drinking compared with the situation now, she would see that the percentage rate has declined. Nobody gives drivers the credit for that. I accept that too many are still killed, but the numbers are declining all the time. The system is working.

Ms. Ruddock: If my hon. Friend had been present for any of the road safety debates in the House he would have heard Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen acknowledge on every occasion the great efforts and achievements of the Government in reducing the number of deaths and injuries due to road accidents. Nevertheless, 5,000 deaths are not acceptable.

Mr. Ashton: We might have one of the best accident rates in Europe, but we have the second worst accident rate when it comes to children on their way to school. Why do we not have a campaign to stop people killing children going to school? Hardly any of those drivers have been drinking. [Interruption.] That is a valid point. All these arguments are often put together by people who are against drink, full stop.
The greatest number of deaths from drink-driving occur not at Christmas but in May when the nights become lighter and people start driving into the countryside. But it is always at Christmas that the Government announce big expensive campaigns 'with television advertisements and the police go on to the streets with their breathalysers. Such campaigns often have the wrong emphasis.
My part of the world has experienced exactly the type of system that my hon. Friend wants to introduce. I am a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Britain has 43 different police forces and the chief constable of each is a law unto himself. He decides, often on a whim or a fancy, what sort of breathalyser campaign he will launch.
For five years, Nottinghamshire had a chief constable—he has now passed on and I shall not denigrate him in any way—who was vehemently against drink in any way, shape or form. Those five Christmases were a nightmare. On one side of the River Trent, about 200 people would be breathalysed; on the other side of the River Trent, 200 yards away, 4,000 would be breathalysed. In the other direction, in Derbyshire, about 200 were breathalysed, while in Nottinghamshire there were 4,000. That created an atmosphere which almost killed off Christmas for many people. In places such as Worksop in my area, nothing

moved—people were frightened to go to parties, dances would be half empty and the pubs and Christmas entertainments lost thousands because of the police campaign. In the end, the campaign proved nothing.
The police were stopping traffic to test windscreen wipers or lights. People were stopped on their way home from work at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. God knows what it cost in police manpower. Many of the drivers were very annoyed. They had not had a drink, they were being delayed on their way home from work and in the end the campaign produced next to nothing.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if someone is stopped for a windscreen wiper check but has not been involved in a moving traffic accident and does not give obvious signs of drinking, the police are acting illegally in asking such persons to take a random breath test?

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman is right, but who will challenge the police? What brave man or woman in the street will refuse to take a breath test and be prepared to go to court? It does not work that way. Most people just blow in the bag to get it over with and obey what they think is the law.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I may eventually come to the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman, but on this point I think that he is wrong. It is not the public perception of testing that matters. The person who never drinks and drives looks on himself as a potential innocent victim; the person who does some drinking says, "Thank heavens I wasn't above the limit"; and the person above the limit is caught bang to rights. That is not the objection. The objection is whether it will do much good.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman can make his case when he makes his own speech.
I represent a rural area. Many of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench represent cities. Labour Members tend to represent city constituencies. My constituents cannot get a bus down to the pub, and there is no tube, as there is in Deptford.

Ms. Ruddock: There is no tube in Deptford.

Mr. Ashton: There is public transport in London. If I lived in London, I would not even have a car—it would be a waste of money—but in rural areas people cannot work without a car. They cannot get their kids to school or go shopping—they cannot do anything without a car. Without a car, the quality of life is vastly different.
If one of my constituents went to the village pub in his car and had a couple of pints, the only thing that he might knock down would be a rabbit. The roads are deserted in rural areas. People do not speed down to the pub for a couple of pints on Saturday night. It does not happen. My hon. Friend is trying to make one law which will apply throughout the country and it will not work. Closing hours are not as rigid in rural areas as they tend to be in cities. There is a much more relaxed attitude. It is a different life.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman, but he is going over the top. He is not treating the matter as seriously as he should. He is virtually saying that his constituents in Bassetlaw are exceptional and should be excluded from drink-driving laws. It is crazy to say that they should have a special dispensation.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. There are 43 different police forces, representing a wide range of areas—from inner cities with high crime rates to rural areas where there is little crime. To say that this is the law for 43 different police forces to administer as they like will result in the shambles that we have seen in Nottinghamshire.

Dr. Godman: I have been here since the start of the debate. Debates such as this, and drink-driving legislation passed by the House, may well be upstaged and overruled by the EC. Is it not the case that at this moment the European Commission is anxious to bring about a dramatic reduction in the permissible level of alcohol in a drivers' bloodstream?

Mr. Ashton: I did not mention the European Community, so I do not know how the hon. Gentleman's intervention is applicable. I mentioned our rate of accidents and said that we have half the number of deaths that they have in Europe, but I shall let that pass.
To return to my argument, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said that random breath testing is Labour party policy. I do not remember that being debated at any of our conferences. I do not remember anyone, anywhere, saying anything of the sort. The Labour party prides itself on its grass-roots democracy. Resolutions come from the constituencies, from the ordinary rank and file members who pay their £10 a year, make the policies and send resolutions to Blackpool or Brighton where we have a long debate about them. I have never read one line of debate about random breath testing in Tribune or anywhere else.

Ms. Ruddock: It is in that document there.

6 pm

Mr. Ashton: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend may have a fat document on transport in which she has smuggled something through on the bottom of page 419, chapter 21, without anyone knowing about it, and she is now saying that it is Labour policy.

Mr. John Prescott: The hon. Member—I shall not call him my hon. Friend—has taken as long on this argument as on everything else that he has mentioned in his speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not turn his back on the Chair.

Mr. Prescott: You need not look so serious about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not such a major crime.
At the party conference, we debated a document entitled "Moving into the Nineties", which made policy absolutely clear. After major discussions in the movement, after resolutions, discussion at the executive council and at the conference—whether the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) chose to debate it at the conference is a matter for him—the whole document passed through the democratic process through which Labour party policy has to pass. Therefore, I am entitled to say that he should withdraw his remark because there was debate, the policy was clearly defined and was a matter for amendment and discussion in the executive council, which came to the view that we are putting forward today.

Mr. Ashton: If the hon. Member can show me the report of the Labour party conference at which it was

debated in Brighton, Blackpool or wherever—I have been to every conference for the past 28 years—I shall certainly withdraw my remark.

Mr. Allason: I do not wish to intrude into other people's grief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but is it appropriate for the Labour party to discuss what is or is not party policy when we are supposed to be discussing the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will keep a little closer to the amendments and the new clause.

Mr. Ashton: I pursued that argument because my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Deptford, have been saying what they would do if we were in power. So far as I am concerned this matter has not been debated at our conferences and my hon. Friends the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has not taken up my offer to show me the report of the Labour party conference where it was debated.

Mr. Prescott: Where the document was debated?

Mr. Ashton: No, where the policy was debated.

Mr. Prescott: If you did not raise it, you twit, it may not have been debated.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to call his hon. Friend a "twit"?

Mr. Ashton: The trouble with my hon. Friend is that when he loses in debate he loses his temper.
I shall move on to my next argument. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will listen to me, as I have been in the House longer than he has and I can tell him what happened. There was a by-election in Leicester when Barbara Castle was Secretary of State for Transport—she could not even drive, but we made her Secretary of State. She introduced the breathalyser and Labour lost a safe seat at the by-election because of it. The former Labour Chief Whip, Mr. Bert Bowden, whom you may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, fought that by-election and lost the seat for Labour. He retired, went to the Lords and became chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Association. The Tories went around every working men's club and miners' institute in Leicester before the by-election—they would do it again now—to tell them that the breathalyser was to be introduced. It cost us hundreds of votes. There was no question about it.
The same is true in many of our constituencies today. We represent miners' institutes in rural areas and areas where there has been a lot of slum clearance, where working mens' clubs are trying to hang on. [Interruption.] I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would listen instead of rabbiting all the time.

Mr. Prescott: I am trying to counteract some of the reactionary elements in the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Ashton: I am not reactionary—I am speaking for the working-class Labour voter.

Mr. Spearing: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ashton: No.

Mr. Spearing: I speak for those voters, too.

Mr. Ashton: I have given way about 15 times and I am trying to make a speech.
Many working men's clubs are hanging on by a thread because the houses around them have been pulled clown, and because members are getting older and dying off. This is true of any large city. It must be the same in Hull as it is in Sheffield, where there used to be 65 working men's clubs but the number is now down to about 30. It is probably the same in Doncaster, which you represent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is killing them off most is fear—people are afraid of going out at night and of taking the wife out on a Friday or Saturday and getting breathalysed. Members of working men's clubs will tell hon. Members that. Why do members not bother to come? Why cart they not even get enough people for a game of bingo? Club members do not want to get breathalysed; they would sooner buy a six-pack, sit at home and watch television.

Mr. Spearing: I understand many of my hon. Friend's arguments, but in his catalogue of what may be justifiable crimes, is he telling the House that we should not be worried if people drive around having had not just two pints but sufficient alcohol to be above the limit? If my hon. Friend analyses what he has been saying—apart from some of the justifiable criticisms that he has made—he will surely realise that he has not tackled the proposals made in the new clause.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, I have. I am trying to get across the message that every person and every area is different.

Mr. Spearing: Even if they are over the limit?

Mr. Ashton: Let me finish putting my case.
Everyone I know who drinks and drives occasionally is in favour of tougher sentences for drunk-driving. They think that a drunken driver who kills someone should go to prison for 10 or 15 years. Everyone I know who is against random testing is in favour of tougher sentences. To say that because one likes a drink one is in favour of drunken driving is like saying that because one likes sex one is in favour of rape. It is not true. It is nonsense.
It is not true to say that, because people like to drink a pint of beer and then drive home from the pub, they are in favour of killing people on the roads or that they support drunken drivers who are a menace to society. However, they object strenuously to people who do not drink but who assume that because they would feel woozy and unfit to drive a car after one pint of beer everyone else is the same. People who do not drink make far too many generalisations, and assume that, because drink has a powerful effect upon them, the bloke sitting next to them who has drunk a pint is not fit to drive either. That is not true.

Mr. Spearing: I cannot have expressed myself sufficiently clearly. My hon. Friend may be justified in making some of those remarks, but is he saying that a person who agrees with the legal limit—I think that we all do, even those who drink two pints and then drive home—thinks that people who go above that limit should not be subject to some sort of check? He must realise that someone who has had more than the legal limit is a dangerous driver—whether that limit is too high or too low is another argument.

Mr. Ashton: The average person would accept it if the existing check prevailed. If someone drives a car which is swerving or if there appears to be something wrong with the car or the way it is being driven, it is perfectly

acceptable for the police to stop them. No one is arguing about that. The average bloke, who might drink one pint and then drive home, is saying that it is monstrous if testing becomes a lottery, depending on where one lives, the time of day and whether one takes a chance and has a pint. That is too much of a lottery.
As always, the King Herod principle is in operation—because a handful of football hooligans cause a riot at Tottenham, away supporters are banned from every ground in the country, or because there is a problem with Leeds football supporters, one does not let them go to Hull. That is not what policing and justice are all about. Justice is about punishing criminals.

Mr. Roger Gale: Is not the crux of the hon. Gentleman's argument simply the fact that the random breath test will not work? Is it not a fact that the police do not want to be pinned down at a road block, stopping motorists and breathalysing people who have probably not been drinking, while all manner of mayhem is going on just around the corner? They would much sooner go out on patrol to do the job that they have been trained to do.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Member is absolutely right. There will be a lottery, depending on where one lives. In Nottinghamshire, they are red hot on breathalysers. In Derbyshire, they are red hot on speeding. If you happen to live in Sheffield, then for God's sake don't park on a yellow line. Every police force has its foibles and whims. The public know that if they do certain things in certain areas they will get the chop.

Mr. Spearing: That is a criticism of the police.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, it is. Let me tell my hon. Friend, however, that elected councillors have no say in these matters. I would not mind if it was the county councillors who told the chief constable, "We want you to crack down," but it is not—the chief constable himself decides. It is for him to say, "This is operational—you cannot tell me that I can or cannot implement it."
The public have no way of protesting democratically. If they think that the chief constable is being too tough with the breathalysers, there is not a damn thing that they can do. They cannot vote against it; they cannot complain about it; they cannot raise it in the House by putting down a question asking the Secretary of State for Transport to go and see the chief constable. We have been through this before, although when the issue last came before the House—two years ago—it was not even raised during a transport debate; it was raised during discussion of the Criminal Justice Bill, and it was beaten then, but now it is trying to surface again.
Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford that the number who are killed by drunken drivers-800 out of 5,000—is far too high, she gave us no figures to show how many people are killed, for instance, by lorries on the motorway which are carrying too much Weight and cannot brake in time, or by fog, or by speeding. All those are killers, and all need seeing to, but we never debate them or vote on them. This is the campaign that has been adopted, perhaps because it is considered a vote winner, with the result that a section of the motoring public are continually driving in fear.
If the new clause is passed, many towns and villages will find that Saturday nights become drastically and


traumatically different. Social life will be affected, and employment will suddenly vanish for those who rely on catering and the pubs and clubs for their living—waitresses, for instance, and other working-class people who may have part-time Saturday night pub jobs.

Mr. Stephen Day: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman, so I am giving him an opportunity to clarify his position. He seems to be trying to excuse drink-driving.

Mr. Ashton: I am putting a case for the status quo. The present system is working—the number of drink-related deaths is falling every year. The hon. Gentleman may think that, if drink had been abolished, those 800 lives could have been saved, but 400 of them would probably have been lost in other circumstances. Accidents happen.
Random breath testing would have a major impact on Nottinghamshire life at Christmas. The average person wants tougher penalties to be imposed on those who cause accidents when they have been drinking and driving. The other day, someone who had killed a young man did not even lose his licence; he was simply fined £250. A famous television star was involved—I mention no names, but hon. Members will know who I mean. That caused tremendous anger—understandably so—but no drink was involved. There are massive inconsistencies in the penalties handed out by the courts. The alternative is mandatory confiscation for 12 months for those 2 per cent. in excess of the breathalyser limit.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless speeches are briefer and interventions fewer, we shall be here until very late.

Mr. Channon: Let me bring the debate back to the point at which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said that we must address the matter very seriously. It is indeed a serious issue, and I congratulate her on bringing it to the attention of the House.
The debate has shown that views differ strongly across the parties. The feeling of the House is not monolithic; many Conservative Members agree with the new clause, and I suspect that some Opposition Members apart from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) oppose it. Surely we can all agree, however—indeed, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw just said as much—that we want a continual reduction in drink-driving.
Admittedly, the figures have fallen substantially. I believe that they have halved over the past 12 or 13 years, from about 1,790 to about 840. That is a great success, but it is not good enough. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and others are quite right to say that we should do all that we can to reduce the number who are killed or maimed in accidents caused by drink—or, indeed, by any other factor. The question that the House must decide is whether random breath tests will achieve the desired effect, and I do not think they will.
6.15 pm
I readily concede that many people outside, and masses of well-meaning organisations of high calibre, think that random testing is the answer, and those who argue against it may sometimes feel that they are in the minority. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree. Unlike the hon. Member

for Bassetlaw, I do not think that it will make an enormous difference, nor do I think that the way in which the House decides tonight will have the dramatic effect anticipated by either the hon. Gentleman—as an extreme opponent of the new clause—or its extreme proponents. As we have been told time and again, the police already have the necessary powers.

Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Channon: This is the one and only time that I shall do so. I am sure that hon. Members want me to get on with my speech.

Mr. Day: Again, I seek clarification. My right hon. Friend has referred to extremist viewpoints; will he identify those viewpoints in the well respected organisations that have supported the measure?

Mr. Channon: I am not trying to criticise any organisation. I am merely saying that there are those who are enthusiastically in favour of the new clause, and those who are enthusiastically against it; and that, whatever the outcome, they will find that it does not make as much difference as they feared or hoped.
The present law has been cited several times. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has explained what goes on in Sussex; as we all know, in effect, random testing already exists. I have read the persuasive speech made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), who rightly said that the police already have the requisite powers. Over the years, there have been many instances of police forces stopping people in such circumstances.
The powers already exist; do we need to increase them? There may be a case for clarifying the law, but I think that it is already fairly clear. It has been explained again many times this evening: it is well understood that the police have the power to stop drivers and, if they have reasonable cause to believe that they have been drinking, to apply the breathalyser. Well, once he has stopped someone, it is not very difficult for a constable to decide that he has reasonable cause: he may not like the way in which the driver answers him, or the driver's breath may smell of drink.
What is the attitude of the police to the proposals? Some years ago, when my hon. Friend the Minister and I dealt with the issue, the police were altogether against random breath tests, but they changed their minds with remarkable speed over 24 hours: having been violently anti, they became violently pro. They have now made it clear, however, that they are not in favour of the random roadside checks recommended by the hon. Member for Deptford. The want unfettered discretion: they want to be able to stop any driver, regardless of whether he has committed an offence. I wonder how much they will use the measure if it is enacted. I have read an article in which the chief constable of Warwickshire, who I believe was president of the Association of Chief Police Officers and who is very concerned about the matter, explains that the police want unfettered discretion rather than what the Government propose.
The new clause will force drivers to pass through a check; the police will stop every car, or one in 10—as suggested by the hon. Member for Deptford—or one in five, or one in 20. I do not think that that will add much to the number of people who are caught. According to a


parliamentary answer given the other day to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), some 100,000 tests would have to be carried out to establish that 1,000 extra drivers were over the limit.
There are many other better ways of using police resources to prevent drink-driving, and that is my point. If the police want to increase their efforts in that regard, as they clearly did in Nottinghamshire—and I certainly would not oppose such a move—they can target tests and are much more likely to get convictions than under a system of random breath testing. What the police want is either to have unfettered discretion or to target people—to say that all young people, for example, must go through the checks. That is what some Opposition Members and the National Council for Civil Liberties and others find objectionable; they think that young people or people in their thirties are most likely to fail the breath test.
Even the most jaundiced observer must agree that this country's record of road accidents is better than that achieved elsewhere in the Community. No wonder the European Commissioner is worried about traffic accidents. Elsewhere in the Community, the record is very bad; Britain's is much better. That is not to say that we should be complacent. We should try to find ways of reducing the number of accidents still further. We have had campaigns to protect children—I have been involved in them myself—and on other important issues.
What is the best way forward? The efforts made over the years by successive Ministers at the Department of Transport to increase publicity and deal with the treatment of offenders and the whole question of breath tests—I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, who did much during his period of office to increase public awareness of the issues—have ensured that the public are now much more aware of the risks of drink-driving, and people feel far more strongly about the subject than they did five years ago.
Would random breath testing change the situation? The police already have powers, and they do not want the powers that the hon. Member for Deptford would thrust upon them. Moreover, if the police increased their efforts in a more targeted way, they would be more likely to be effective and to catch drunken drivers, which is our whole purpose. I shall be voting against the new clause, and I hope that a great many hon. Members will join me.

Mr. Fearn: I added my name to the new clause because, in Committee, I was adamant that something needed to be done to restrict drink-driving. We need a deterrent. We have all met the person who thinks that accidents never happen to him or who believes that he will be all tight because he knows—or thinks that he knows—his limit and feels that his ability will not be impaired. We have all met people who think that they will never be caught; there are many of them.
As we have already heard, a recent survey by the transport and road research laboratory showed that 42 per cent. of those who admitted to drinking and driving did not think that there was any great chance of detection under existing practice. Until drivers are convinced that there is a good chance that they will be stopped, tested and charged, drink-driving will continue to cause death and destruction on our roads.
Before I deal with civil liberties—the subject on which I wish to concentrate today—I must express my disappointment that, on a matter such as this,

Conservative Members are not to be allowed a free vote. I do not understand why. Clearly there are many arguments for and against the new clause, and hon. Members ought to be able to express their views and beliefs through a free vote. The Liberal Democrats are to have that opportunity. It was evident from the vote on the Road Traffic (Random Breath Testing) Bill 1987, introduced by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) and sponsored by myself and others, that, given the opportunity, hon. Members would overwhelmingly support the new clause. I am sorry that they are not to have that opportunity.
We have heard the cry that random breath testing will infringe a person's civil liberties. That may be true, but the claim can be refuted. As I have pointed out both in the House and in Committee, anybody who gets behind the wheel of a car while under the influence of alcohol automatically and immediately infringes the liberty of others. Random breath testing will protect the liberties of the majority of road users.
The roadside checks that the new clause advocates will be conducted in controlled conditions, with authorisation in writing from senior police officers. In some respects, such checks would represent less of an infringement of individual liberty than the present system, because all drivers would be treated equally. At the moment, individual police officers or traffic patrols can pull a car over when they want to test for drink-driving or when they suspect that the driver may have been drinking, if the car has any defects, no matter how minor—it could be inadequate lighting over the licence plate. They have discretion at that level to make a random breath test.
That has often led to the accusations that the police target certain individuals, especially the young. The statistics tend to back that up, although surveys show that those most likely to be guilty of drink driving are in the older age groups. Unnecessary ill feeling and friction often arise as a result of present practice. That would not happen if motorists knew that any driver was likely to be pulled over and we have heard how, in New South Wales, random roadside testing is believed to have improved public relations between motorists and the police.
As I said, I do not want the discretionary powers of the police to be reduced, but I believe that they would become less necessary if we introduced roadside checks. Such checks would certainly be less of an infringement of people's civil liberties than certain measures advocated by the anti-random breath testing lobby. I refer in particular to the measure in early-day motion 495, which suggests that one method to be used as a deterrent should be
inquiry by police and courts as to the drinking locations and companions of the illegal driver".
Surely such measures would lead to greater infringement of the liberties of innocent persons. I do not think that the clientele of public houses, wine bars, or other drinking establishments would greatly appreciate the courts or the police making inquiries into how they spent their leisure time.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman and I were drinking and I knew that he would be driving afterwards, I would say to him, "You should not be taking alcohol." My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) would also insist on that. If people continue to believe that they have no responsibility for those with


whom they are drinking, and if those with whom they are drinking then kill someone, it is perfectly reasonable for the police and the courts to make inquiries.

Mr. Fearn: I wish that everyone were like the hon. Gentleman and me. Perhaps he and I would do and say that, but not everybody would, and irresponsible people do go out and kill people—we know that the figure is at least 800.
Random breath testing is supported by many organisations, including the NCC and the Consumers Association. Some 3,000 of the 3,400 responses to the Home Office consultation paper on changes to breath testing legislation favoured additional powers for the police. Surveys conducted on behalf of the Consumers Association and others show that the public at large would support more random breath testing and are willing to surrender part of their individual liberty in the interests of the liberty of the majority.
The House is representative of the people. It has the power to do something on their behalf. I hope that, in the interests of preventing the carnage on our roads, hon. Members will break ranks tonight and support the new clause, which is a most worthy proposal.

Mr. Day: Before coming to the points that I want to make in support of the new clause, I should like to thank the Minister for his forebearance in the meeting that he had this morning with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and myself. We are very grateful to him for listening to our views.
I wish to make it clear that, in my remarks on the new clause, I speak not just as an individual but in my capacity as co-chairman of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. Also in that capacity, I wish to put on record the disappointment of the council that our amendments on retesting for alcohol-related offences—amendments that had all-party sponsorship—were not called. We feel that those are central to the potential of the Bill. Indeed, they reflect a major part of the recommendations of the North report.
The case for introducing random breath testing in the United Kingdom can be summarised by reference to three pieces of Government research—one Australian, and two British. First, research conducted by the transport and road research laboratory found that a large proportion of drivers in the United Kingdom who admit to drinking and driving believe that the chances of their being caught are small. This perception is confirmed by information on the actual risk of detection from the British crime survey, which suggests that the chances are as little as one in 200 excess-alcohol driving trips.
Secondly—this has been referred to already—research conducted by the Government of New South Wales shows that highly visible mass random breath testing, targeted at times when drinking and driving is most prevalent, increases the driver's perception of the chances of his being caught, thus deterring potential offenders and reducing the number of road accidents.
Thirdly, there is evidence that United Kingdom drivers surveyed by the transport and road research laboratory believe that routine random breath testing would provide an effective acceptable way of reducing the number of road

accidents. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Joan Ruddock) presented all the arguments supporting the case for random breath testing.
I propose to deal with some of the arguments that have been advanced against its introduction, none of which I find particularly convincing. I was surprised by the recent motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), which suggests that the available evidence does not support the belief that mass random breath testing would be helpful. A number of countries have introduced the measure, but I shall restrict my remarks to the evidence from New South Wales, as the experience there has been rigorously monitored, and there is much information on the effects.
Random breath testing was introduced in New South Wales in December 1982 as a three-year experiment. The overall objective was to create a very high perceived risk of being randomly breath tested if one continued to drink and drive. The figures that I am about to quote may be found in a paper entitled "An Overview of the Random Breath Testing Trial in New South Wales", which was produced by three members of the New South Wales traffic authority. I commend that paper to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham in particular.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend have a copy?

Mr. Day: I shall show my hon. Friend a copy afterwards.
Part of the monitoring exercise of the trial to which this document refers was to look at the effect of the measure on accidents and casualties. It was found that, as a direct result of random breath testing, the average yearly reduction in the number of all fatal crashes was 21 per cent. The average yearly reduction in the number of crashes involving injury of all levels of severity in which the driver or rider was over the legal limit—in the case of New South Wales, 50 mg per 100 ml—was more than 35 per cent. Public support for the measure rose from 64 per cent. before random breath testing to 85 per cent. afterwards. Social security savings amounted to 20 times the cost of implementing the measure. So convincing were the results that the measure was placed permanently on the New South Wales statute book. Michael Knight MP, the then chairman of the parliamentary committee charged with assessing the affects of the measure, concluded:
Random breath testing has been the single most effective tool in the struggle to reduce the road toll in the history of New South Wales.
Therefore, it is simply not the case that the call for random breath testing cannot be supported by good evidence. Evidence from Sweden shows that random testing works not only in countries that have higher levels of drinking and driving than does the United Kingdom, but in countries where the levels are much lower.
It is important to point out that simple comparisons, between international rates of progress in this field can be misleading. I am sorry that they have been used as an argument against random breath testing. The argument runs that as the United Kingdom has reduced drink driving faster than most other countries, why should the existing policy be changed? That question has been asked in the House today. It is a welcome fact that we have made good progress during the last 10 years, having reduced the rate of over-the-limit deaths from one in three to one in five. This has come about as a result of a number of


factors: changes in the 1981 Act providing for evidential equipment; increases in breath testing; and increased social pressure as a result of Government publicity campaigns and the efforts of the campaign against drinking and driving.
However, if we stick to simple comparisons, we shall not do as well as we could. Sweden, for example, could be said to be doing better, having got the rate of over-the-limit deaths down to one in 14. But in reality, these figures do not mean very much. We have to remember that different legal limits, mixes of traffic, climate and road conditions all confound meaningful and scientific comparison between international rates of progress in this area. We heard this type of argument during the debate on the legislation making the wearing of seat belts compulsory for front-seat passengers, when crude number-crunching exercises were advanced to suggest that seat belts did not appear to save lives, because savings did not show up easily in some national data. It is fortunate that those negative arguments did not hold sway.
I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eltham. Indeed, I think that he was one of the best Transport Ministers we have ever had—especially in road safety. I am particularly surprised at his attitude in advancing this sort of argument. I find it difficult to square his present stance with the stance that he took when he was responsible for roads and traffic. In answer to a parliamentary question on 4 April 1989, he advised against drawing simple international comparisons of this kind. He
Simple comparisons and statistics may be misleading; for instance, the legal limit for blood alcohol content in New South Wales is 50 mg/ml, and in this country it is 80 mg/ml."—[Official Report, 4 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 18.]

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that I shall get an opportunity later to speak in my own right, but I should like to put this matter in context now. As I understand the situation, the difference between the figures produced by the 50 mg level and the 80 mg level is probably two percentage points. My understanding is that the figure for dead drivers above the legal limit in New South Wales is 33 per cent., and that in this country it is 19 per cent. If the two percentage points were added, the figure for dead drivers above the legal limit in this country would be 21 per cent. There does seem to be an unexplained difference. Perhaps New South Wales would gain by copying us.

Mr. Day: I readily acknowledge my hon. Friend's great understanding of these matters, but the assumption at the end of his intervention did not necessarily correspond with the facts that he had put forward. However, I take note of what he said.
I wish to return to the suggestion that sufficient breath testing is being done at present and that, somehow, conducting random breath testing would be going over the top. According to the last set of annual figures for England and Wales, only one in 50 drivers was breath-tested annually. That means that, on average, drivers are breath-tested only once in their driving career. That is hardly excessive or overbearing. The figures provided to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary suggest that the average number of breath tests per traffic officer is only one per week. Again, I do not feel that that is in any way excessive. Even the most enthusiastic random breath testing policy, which aims at the testing of one in two

drivers annually, would result in every driver being breath-tested only once in two years. In my view, that is hardly excessive.
I emphasise that this new clause does not seek to give the police unfettered discretion to stop motorists and breath-test them. Despite the explanation by the hon. Member for Deptford, the intention seems to have been misunderstood as being to increase the rate of detection. In fact, it is to increase the level of deterrence. We do not want to detect drunken drivers; we do not want to have drunken drivers on the road at all.That is what the new clause is all about.
I do not accept that because the police can act to stop motorists under two separate sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988, they necessarily have sufficient powers. That legislation has led to great confusion, particularly regarding interpretation. The chances of detection range between one in 250 journeys in some parts of the country, and one in 4,000 in others. Such a lottery can hardly be fair.
The extra power in the new clause would clarify the position for drivers and, more importantly, for chief constables. As I said on Second Reading, I have heard Ministers say that the police already have adequate powers to act and that no further measures are necessary. That implies that the Government accept the principle of random breath testing—we are arguing only about the practice—so why cannot they accept the new clause?
I would welcome an explanation of how the Government hope to achieve casualty reduction figures while rejecting the major contribution that the new clause would make towards achieving those figures. Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain how he hopes to convince the 42 per cent. who admit to drink driving yet believe that they will get away with it, to change their ways, if the Government are not prepared to take further action. There is a danger that the public will believe that the Government find that 42 per cent. acceptable.
As for civil liberties, I am sure that no hon. Member would agree that people have the right to take whatever action they wish, irrespective of the consequences for others. We all broadly accept that responsibilities go with rights, and we must therefore also accept that drink drivers are, tragically, often guilty of that.
I remind the House that drink driving-related accidents account for 800 deaths and 22,000 casualties a year. Furthermore, half of the victims will not have been drinking and driving.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: While my hon. Friend is on that subject, does he agree that a possible alternative way to deal with the problem is to ensure that every driver who is caught driving over the prescribed limit is charged with reckless driving? Such a charge could be made on the basis that, in this day and age, to get into the driver's seat knowing that one is over the limit is a reckless act. It therefore follows that if, as a consequence of drinking and driving, they cause death, they should be tried for causing death by reckless driving.

Mr. Day: My hon. Friend's remarks are worth considering. Although penalties are important, they are not the main factor. Deterrence is the most important factor, so, to some extent, penalties apply, but the greatest


deterrent is to know that one has a chance of being caught. The new clause is important, because it will increase the public's perception of the possibility of being caught.
A significant number of my hon. Friends have asked whether we could have a free vote on the new clause, and I register my disappointment that that has not happened. The Government could have paid no greater or more eloquent testimony to the arguments of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety than to apply a three-line Whip. The measure should have been dealt with in the same way as the seat belt legislation and left to the individual conscience and intelligence of hon. Members. Many hon. Members, whatever their views on the matter, would have wanted that.
I hope that hon. Members, whatever they feel about the issue, will consider the matter in depth. They must all agree that lives are important and that drinking and driving is silly and wrong. Notwithstanding the three-line Whip, I hope that they will join me in the Lobby in support of the new clause.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall be brief, particularly as so many of the arguments have already been put most volubly by other hon. Members.
When I added my name to the new clause, I did not expect the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) to call me a killjoy, especially as I represent no fewer than 43 distilleries on Speyside, and have a strong interest in the future of the whisky industry. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that, although I have that interest at heart, I also recognise the importance of the new clause. He may care to reflect on that fact that people who now visit distilleries on Speyside as part of a tourist visit, instead of being offered a dram of whisky at the end of the visit, are now offered a miniature to drink when they get home. That shows the responsible attitude that the distilleries have adopted to the problem of alcohol abuse.
Like the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I represent a substantial rural constituency, but I cannot accept his argument that the introduction of random breath tests will result in many restaurants, bars and clubs closing down because people will be frightened to move.
In my constituency, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, most of the vehicles going to social gatherings are taxis. Taxi drivers have benefited from the introduction of the breathalyser test. My constituents must cover vast distances but they join together to share taxis in order to avoid drinking and driving. Alternatively, one person in a group exercises self-discipline and says, "I am driving so I shall not drink, and that is the end of it." I have sat through many a party into the wee hours of the morning, nursing a tonic or a soda water. I wish that all drivers would exercise the same self-discipline.
Also in my constituency, I have the chairman of an organisation known as SCID—the Scottish Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers. That organisation would agree with many of the arguments about sentencing policy and about the need to look at other aspects of road safety—for example, how many years' driving experience people should have before they sit beside a learner driver, and other aspects that it considers part and package of its campaign against irresponsible driving. However, it has also consistently emphasised the need for random breath testing. It sent to me, and presumably to many other hon.

Members, case histories of the families of victims, where young people had been killed by drink-drivers. They show the sheer psychological torture through which those families go as a result of such bereavement. One cannot help but be touched by those stories.
The House has a responsibility to those families who have been deprived of one of their loved ones in such a way and should back a campaign that is worthy of support and has clear public demand. We also have a responsibility to remind drivers what they stand to lose if they are convicted of drink-driving. They will suffer the humiliation of being found out. Many of them will lose not only their licences but their jobs. Their loss can bring family tensions, and their recklessness can destroy the innocent lives of their own families. I am making a plea for drivers to exercise greater self-discipline and to remember what they may lose.
The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) mentioned self-test kits. Just before Christmas, there was a possibility that such kits might be introduced in Scotland. The idea was rejected by representatives of the Scottish Office, so it was not encouraged. It seems possible that putting self-test kits in any establishment where alcohol is served might encourage people to drink up to the maximum legal level, rather than discourage them from drinking at all.
I would prefer it to be an offence to drink any alcohol when one takes a car on the road. A car is the most lethal weapon that any of us are likely to own in our lifetime. To take alcohol while driving that lethal weapon seems to be the height of irresponsibility, and I shall not encourage the use of self-test kits. I listened to the intervention of the hon. Member for Havant with care, but was not persuaded that encouraging people to drink up to the legal limit was the best way forward.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I have carefully studied the issue, and I know that, where such instruments have been generally and widely available, there is no evidence that they encourage people to drink up to the legal limit. The obverse is true—the lower the limit, the greater the obligation on those who may take a drink or half a drink and then drive, to find out specifically, before taking the risk, whether they are in a position to drive.

Mrs. Ewing: While I accept that point, I believe that various tests have shown that different kits give different readings. If they are to be introduced, they will have to be critically monitored to ensure that they are effective. I am not yet convinced that they are that efficient. We must try to become a society in which people do not drink and drive at all—we should legislate for that, as many other European countries do.
Many hon. Members who are opposed to the new clause have argued that it will not resolve the problem, because there is no guarantee that we will catch additional drink-drivers. The purpose of the new clause is not to catch drink-drivers, but to deter them. If an individual feels that the police are able to use random breath testing, that will act as a deterrent. If we keep off the road just one more possible drink-driver who is likely to cause an accident, the new clause will have the potential to save lives and avoid injury. The purpose of the new clause is to act as a deterrent—surely we should support that.

Sir Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) made a powerful speech, with almost every word of which I agree.
I do not think that any of us would dispute the fact that drink driving is a serious social and human problem. Since the breathalyser was first introduced 25 years ago, at the end of the 1960s, more than 25,000 people have been killed by drink-driving on this country's roads. In a quarter of a century, the number of humans we have wiped out is equivalent to the entire expeditionary force in the Persian Gulf.
The position is improving. During the past 10 years, the number of people killed and injured by drink-drivers on our roads has decreased by 50 per cent. There are a number of reasons for that, including a changed perception within society. The fundamental reason why the number of deaths and injuries on our roads has dropped so sharply is that the number of breath tests during the past 10 years has trebled—three times more breath tests were given in 1990 than in 1980. The public's perception that the police now put far more effort into carrying out breath tests has led to that quite dramatic reduction in the number of deaths and injuries.
There are more breath tests than there were, because the police take a much broader view of their powers to stop drivers. During the past few years, we in this country have developed a system of de facto random testing. There is random stopping, which almost invariably leads to testing. The police have introduced a system which is, in effect, random testing, but the House has not yet given them the powers to implement it.
We tell the police to stop people randomly, but we hesitate to give them the powers for random testing. It is interesting that so few people want to abolish the power of random stopping. Even the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who made a powerful speech against the new clause, does not want to abolish that power. He said that he was in favour of the status quo, but he did not say that he wanted to go back on the status quo and abolish the right of random stopping. Even he is happy with that power as it exists.
If there were an amendment giving the police what they want—unfettered powers to stop and test—I would vote in favour of it, but there is no such amendment. Instead. we are discussing the much more limited new clause, which was moved so well by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). I am prepared to vote for it because I believe that it will increase the deterrent power, which is all-important.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic said that our acceptance of the new clause and its implementation by this country's police forces would cost an additional £12 million a year, which is a lot of money. However, the 800 deaths a year caused by drink-driving also cost society a great deal. If increased deterrence leads to a further reduction in such deaths of 10 per cent. a year, and we save an additional 80 lives a year at a cost of £12 million, that money will be well spent. I intend to support the new clause this evening.

Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief. My speech will not be as learned as some that we have heard this evening, and I intend to offer no comparative evidence in support of the new clause.
I have been astonished by the level of knowledge of the traffic laws of other countries shown by some hon. Members. It seems that many hon. Members have visited New South Wales, Sweden and other places. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) is but one of the hon.

Members who used comparative evidence extensively in his support of the new clause. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) seems to be a brilliant expert in the methodology of statistical analysis. I shall skip that approach.
I think that the hon. Member for Cheadle said that drink-driving is silly behaviour. He seems to be nodding, but I am sure he would agree, on reflection, that drink-driving is dangerously irresponsible behaviour, whether the driver has drunk one pint—to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—or four or five pints, or two or three glasses of the best Chardonnay. To drink and to drive is to commit an irresponsible act.

Mr. Day: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will find that I added something to that statement which is more in tune with what he is saying.

7 pm

Dr. Godman: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman intervened.
The new clause would act as a pretty powerful deterrent, and that is how we should regard it. The police forces involved would need a code of practice, as the new clause states, which would emphasise the need for civility, courtesy and firmness when checking people. The number of people who are killed and maimed because others commit the dangerously irresponsible act of getting behind the wheel of a car after having drunk alcohol should persuade hon. Members to ignore the Whips and to support the new clause.
I wish to make one criticism of the irresponsible behaviour of courts in Scotland. I say "irresponsible" because some of our sheriffs impose appallingly slight sentences on people who have been convicted of drink-related offences. When a driver's skills have been impaired by drink to such an extent that he or she causes an accident or hurts someone, he or she should receive condign punishment when convicted in a court of law. Too many sheriffs have let people off with trivial sentences.
If the new clause is to act as a deterrent, people who are convicted of such offences should be punished, and punished severely. I look forward to the day when the European Community, by way of a qualified majority vote, introduces to the 12 nations a drastically reduced permissible level of drink for drivers. When that issue was raised in the Council of Transport Ministers, it just failed to get the qualified vote. I look forward to that vote being reversed.
As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, people should not drink before getting into a car. That is why I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. There should be no question of having a pint and then getting into a car. If one is driving, one should not drink at all. That is the message that the House should send out, whatever happens to the new clause.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I agree. It is important that people get the message that they should either drive or drink, but not both. The choice is the bottle or the throttle—"If you have the wagon, stay on the wagon." People should get together with their friends and appoint a driver.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on one point. Cutting out drink-driving—rather


than reducing it to the legal limit—is not against the interests of the country pub. Anyone who thinks that it is should get in touch with Ron Jones who used to be the president of the National Licensed Victuallers Association and is landlord of the Friar Tuck and of the Little John, in Hatfield Woodhouse, nine miles east of Doncaster. He is a Yorkshire publican who will confirm that, if a pub does its job correctly and provides an attractive range of non-alcoholic and low-alcohol drinks, and if people either walk to the pub—one advantage of having a local—or allow one person to drive others, the pub's takings will increase because three people will not each feel guilty about their car or motor bike in the pub car park.
There are three problems with which we must deal—apathy, ignorance and stupidity. I usually tackle the problem of apathy by quoting the first paragraph of an article written by Auberon Waugh in The Spectator on 15 February 1986. It was the first article that affected me when I went to the Department of Transport as one of the predecessors of my hon. Friend the Minister. It is well worth reading for those who have not yet done so. It appears in most road safety debates.
However, I prefer today to read from a booklet produced by MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which is an American organisation. The booklet is called "Will It Always Feel This Way?" The first page is entitled "What it feels like now". It states:
Right now, if you are like most people responding to the killing of their child, you are experiencing pain.
The pain can feel as though it is in one special place—your head or chest. Or it can feel as though it has taken over your whole body. Or it may just be pain, not settled anywhere.
The pain can be so intense that it is almost intolerable.
You feel driven to do something, even while knowing there is nothing that can be done.
It is hard to concentrate, easy to become distracted. You may start an activity, forget what you were about to do, start again.
If you are thinking about the child killed, however, you don't become distracted. Then you are focused. You may have the feeling of still being able to do something for the child. You may feel this way even if in the back of your mind you know that it isn't so.
You may feel filled with anger. You are likely to be angry at the drunken individual who was truly responsible for the killing; but you may also be angry at members of the legal system or the hospital staff. You may be angry at anyone who doesn't understand.
Your anger can be directed against yourself for not having done something that would have prevented what happened—no matter how illogical this is.
It continues. No one should doubt that we have a serious responsibility in terms of legislative powers, as do the police and everyone involved—the driver, the passenger, the host, the drinking location, the breweries, the Scotch Whisky Association, and others.
We all have a responsibility to cut out the remaining 840 deaths a year, but I suspect that the figure is probably down to about 650. There were 840 deaths in 1988. Each year we have, on average, cut the deaths from drink-driving by 100. We have halved the number of those deaths in the past 10 years. Sadly, that cannot be claimed by other countries.
We have talked about New South Wales, and I congratulate it on its achievements between 1982 and 1984. I do not have the information necessary to allow me

to congratulate it on its achievements since then, but there is no doubt that it cut its drink-driving deaths between 1982 and 1984. It introduced mass random breath testing.
If we introduced testing to that extent, we should have as many tests each week as we currently have each year. There would be 25 million tests a year instead of approximately 500,000 a year. Every statistic may not be right. Some refer to England and Wales, some to Great Britain and some to the United Kingdom, but the rough figure is that there would be 25 million tests a year instead of 500,000. That would not do a great deal to increase detection.
I disagree with. the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on one point—deterrence must be built on the experience of detection. People would believe that they were being deterred only for about six months if there were not increasing detection.
In 1967, when the breathalyser was introduced, for a few months, nobody took alcohol and drove. People then discovered that they did not get caught every time, so they slipped. There was a momentary boost to life—a momentary reduction in drink-driving casualties.
I came to the subject in 1986, although I had the normal interest of a Member of Parliament before that, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, with whose speech I basically agreed.
In 1986, at the Department of Transport, I rediscovered the transport and road research laboratory. An inter departmental committee also recommended that we should move money from the publicity budget to research.
I discovered that the probable reason why our road deaths in this country have improved so much faster than those in other countries and the reason why our road deaths are at half the level of the Community average—and dramatically lower than those above the Community average—is that, almost always, what we did was based on fact or on a disprovable hypothesis.
I recommend those who are some years out of university, of college, or of the Workers Educational Association, to go back to Karl Popper's book about the open society and its enemies. It helps to find a disprovable hypothesis.
From 1984 to 1989, for which we have the most reliable and easily available figures, we achieved more than any other country that I have yet been able to discover in the reduction of drink-driving fatalities. Let us all remember that the only aim is to save lives. We sometimes become carried away about saving lives. At the age of 80 or 90, I do not want heroic efforts to be made to give me an extra six months. If there was a way to cut out drink-driving among the young, many parents would avoid the misery to which the booklet by the Mothers Against Drunk Driving was directed.
In a wide alliance, which I helped to construct, we built on the work of those before 1986 to continue the reduction in drink-driving. If people refer to page 25 of the article by Derek Jones in "The Casualty Report—Road Accidents, Great Britain 1989", which was published in October 1990, they will see table 2J, which shows the transformation in drinking and driving by younger people.
The number of young men who normally drank beer in pubs or clubs was reduced by two thirds if one judges by the proportion of those who died who were above the legal limit. That does not solve all the problems. Auberon


Waugh is right to say that more people die in sober accidents than in alcohol-related accidents, but the alcohol adds to the risk.
Let us consider whether what we have been doing has worked. People kept referring to the comparison with New South Wales. In 1984, 33 per cent. of dead drivers in New South Wales were above the legal limit. In 1989, 33 per cent. of dead drivers in New South Wales were above the legal limit. There were fluctuations in between, but over that five years, the figures did not improve. Anyone who comes to the House and who uses that as an argument to switch away from what we do to what the authorities do in New South Wales will be killing people.
I want to postpone my remarks about the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has a responsibility to share. I hope that he will return to the Chamber, because I do not want to refer to him without his being present.
In this country, we have cut the figure from 28 per cent. of our dead drivers being above the legal limit in 1984 to 19 per cent. in 1989—and the figure may be lower now. I do not think that there has been a dramatic continuation of the trend in 1990 or this year. The reason is that received opinion is suffering from a fashionable fallacy—that random breath testing, if introduced in this country, would make a significant difference to saving lives. There is no reason to believe that. If 40 per cent. of dead drivers were above the legal limit, there might be a difference. It would probably bring the reduction that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) mentioned. However, our figure is less than half of 40 per cent. What are people doing if they do not read the information?
7.15 pm
I should love to support random breath testing. If I thought that it would save a significant number of lives or if, on balance, it would save lives more effectively than the alternative approach has saved, I should support it, even if there was a three-line Whip.
However, I ask all those who have any doubts to vote against the new clause because, if it were introduced now, it would have the same effect as it would have had if it had been introduced two, four or six years ago. It would cause people to chase a system that does not have persistent results.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was right to say that there are three ways to cut casualties. First, every host, whether in a pub, at a party or in a family home, should have an attractive range of alcohol-free drinks available on display—people should not have to ask for them—and the host should expect people to take them. The County Surveyors Society was the first group in Great Britain—except perhaps for a temperance party—to put on the menu card, "Your hosts have provided alcohol-free drinks on each table and they encourage drivers to take them." In Northern Ireland, the vintners—the Northern Irish term for victuallers or publicans—at their first annual banquet, were the second group of people to do that. I do not see that happen at dinners of medical societies, at police dinners or at parliamentary dinners, although it is the host's responsibility to make risk-free drink available to drivers.
If we could have swapped half the random breath testing for the three points mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, we should have had fewer drink-drive deaths this week. Instead of 21 people in

the United Kingdom dying through drink-driving, the figure might have been down to 15. One cannot always lead the media and one certainly cannot lead some of the leaders in the media to realise these points. I must make passing reference to Adam Raphael's succession of articles in the Observer over the past four years in which he has never given any of these facts.
The second point is that the passenger who includes their own driver in a round of alcoholic drinks is something that none of us would tolerate for an airline pilot, a train driver or a member of a crew of a ferry.
I have an image—perhaps a false image—of a 2CV with a hairy man with earrings sitting in the passenger seat. He goes into the pub and comes out, having bought a drink for the woman who is driving. They have a sign on the back saying "Nuclear power, no thanks", as though the risk of a scrap of radioactive dust resting on their noses for a second was in some way more dangerous than sinking a half pint or a pint or two in the pub and then going driving. Passengers, especially if they are over 18, are consenting adults in those circumstances. They are not totally innocent victims. Every passenger should pre-plan to be driven by an alcohol-free driver.
The third point concerns the drivers themselves. No driver should wait until half way through a party or a pub session before deciding how he is to get home or what he is drinking. We should encourage drivers to pre-plan.
Random breath testing will not help with any of those points. It is another part of the game of cops and robbers with the police. We do not want people to come anywhere near the legal limit and then to say that they are all right if they are below the level at which they can be arrested and convicted virtually automatically. We want less offending and less drink-driving.
It is fashionable to support random breath testing. When James Dunbar, the police surgeon from Tayside, first discovered what had been happening in Sweden and in New South Wales in 1985–86, he did a service to the country. He started to show that one could cut drink-driving pretty dramatically. His work was shown to various people, including myself. I went to New South Wales to check the figures, although I did not go to Sweden. I kept ringing up Sweden and asking people there to provide the information.
The time series was not easily available. There were two or three sessions of years for which James Dunbar had information. He may have had the information for Finland. However, the time series for each country is not easily available. If it is, I should love it to be sent to me.
The National Audit Office, in one of its most shoddy pieces of work—report No. 517 in 1988—began to talk about random breath testing. Its job is to examine Government Departments, not to interfere in ministerial decisions. The decision whether to have random breath testing is clearly a decision for Parliament and likely to be based on a ministerial recommendation to Parliament.
The National Audit Office also has a responsibility to consider the effectiveness, efficiency and economic operation of Departments. Irrespective of those three Es, in the 15 months before the National Audit Office reported we were dramatically successful at a lower cost to the taxpayer. In the 15 months before the Select Committee on Transport examined the permanent secretary at the Department of Transport, the number of drink-driving offences committed by young men under 30, appeared


from surveys to have fallen from 2 million occasions a week to 600,000. That was a reduction of two thirds in the incidence of that criminal and lethal activity.
That approach has clearly saved lives, reduced crime and has not relied on a police officer behind every lamp post. One would have expected the National Audit Office therefore to extend that principle into other areas of crime reduction where silly lives are not lost.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my hon. Friend accept that, during that period when there was a substantial improvement, there was an enormous increase in random stopping? Random stopping by the police is surely the key.

Mr. Bottomley: I was describing what I could call the ignorance area. I was learning about what to recommend to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the former Secretary of State for Transport, who was involved in many of the decisions and in whose name many press releases were issued. I hope that he will not mind if I share that credit with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who was the first Secretary of State for Transport to endorse the message that people should not drink and drive at all. He moved away from the message "keep low".
The number of breath tests may have increased from 300,000 to 500,000. However, because of the white noise from the random breath test brigade, people do not consider the facts. Those facts are available in the road accident statistics and they are available in the transport and road research laboratory studies.
They do not reach the general public because the media will only allow the public to learn that people will not run the risk of being caught unless they are caught by a random breath test. If the 42 per cent. of people who are caught driving above the legal limit for drink-driving did not believe that they were likely to be caught, they were wrong.
If it were not so serious, it would be entertaining to hear someone explain that what matters is the perceived risk of being caught and not the real risk of being caught. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred indirectly on 10 December to someone being caught three times. Such a person must not rely on being caught—he must change his behaviour. I believe that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East should resign, but not because of his behaviour. We all make mistakes. I drove badly on the day of his court case and I did something that could have resulted in a loss of life. I do not argue that the hon. Gentleman did that. He should resign because the facts show that opting for random breath tests would cost 200 lives a year within two years. That rate over a decade would cost thousands of lives.
The Opposition's policy is wrong. If they were to offer suggestions which would work, I would support them. All the evidence is that random breath testing at best is a distraction, and at worst would cause more lives to be lost than could now be saved.

Ms. Ruddock: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remarks. It is unacceptable for him to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I or any other hon. Member would table a new clause if we believed that it would result in the

loss of 200 lives a year. We would not, and we have not, done that. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has offered his personal opinion, but he has produced no evidence to support it.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady is plain wrong. I do not blame her, because she is not the boss. I am following the habit of her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who is the boss. If we had introduced random breath testing in 1982, as New South Wales did, or in 1986 or 1988, or if we introduced it now and relied on it to reduce the rate at which people die in alcohol-related accidents, we might have achieved what New South Wales achieved. There would have been 50 per cent. more deaths as a result of drink driving then we now have.

Ms. Ruddock: It is not a question whether the boss is here or not. I made the speech and I will defend it. We have not suggested, as I made absolutely clear, that our proposals in the new clause for random breath testing are a substitute for measures which the Government are pursuing. Nor do we suggest that with hindsight it would have been a better alternative. We propose an additional measure that we believe will result in a further reduction in the number of drink-driving offences and so build on the good results of this country in that respect.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady is leading on to what really matters. If we believe that random checks, even under the method proposed in the new clause, will not add to detection of the crime, in the long term that will not be an effective deterrent. It will not achieve anything. It caused Alcohol Concern to write to hon. Members stating that 500 lives a year would be saved and that that figure is more than half the number of lives still being lost in alcohol-related crashes. That is not possible. A similar argument is made by Derek Rutherford, and it is led by people like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). They are all wrong. In fields such as medicine or education, if people can be shown to be wrong, they keep quiet.
I want to consider what measures would actually work. First, the police around the country should follow the lead of what happens in Scotland, where police try to test every driver involved in a crash. That does not happen in most parts of England, and particularly not on Merseyside or in London.
If we are to have a change in the law, all drink-drivers as a condition of bail should be expected to surrender their licences until they attend court. There would then be no delay in facing the consequences of one's actions. We should also ensure that we try to discover where people got into a condition that is criminal and so often lethal. In that way, people would have to face up to their own responsibilities, instead of relying on the mystique or white magic of random breath testing.
We must make progress so that drink-drive deaths are so infrequent that, when one occurs, the Opposition spokesman on transport calls for the resignation of the Transport Minister. When I was Under-Secretary of State for Transport for three and a half years, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East did not once call for my resignation, even though 14 people a day were dying on our roads. He was not interested in that. He wanted the


glamour. The Opposition and my colleagues should agree on ways to make progress and to continue to reduce deaths on our roads.

Mr. Bidwell: The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has experience as a junior Transport Minister, but he said nothing to convince me that my Front-Bench colleagues are wrong.
Any additional activity should be pursued in the campaign to stop drinking and driving. As has been said earlier, people who drink and drive have a lethal weapon in their hands. That is enormously dangerous. Those people are careless. They are not all drunkards or alcoholics, although the number of alcoholics is increasing. Princess Di came to my constituency not too long ago to open an anti-alcohol clinic called Turning Point. The movement to combat alcoholism is increasing and has had to do so. People in a drunken state will be prone to take risks, a point that has not been raised so far.
7.30 pm
As many other hon. Members have said, the power of this new clause is that it must increase the deterrent. It is a matter of logic. We are asking the police to undertake an additional activity. I am glad that Labour Members have a free vote on the new clause, because that will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) to do, what his conscience guides him to do, so that he can go down to his working men's club and look those present in the face. However, I am considering the new clause in the broad range and asking myself whether it will decrease the possibility of drunken drivers killing other people. I think that it will.
I take on board what the hon. Member for Eltham said about the occasion when the former Member for Blackburn, who is now a Member of the other place, introduced the first breathalyser legislation. The hon. Gentleman implied that the pubs suddenly emptied. They did not. In my own constituency, racially prejudiced publicans who had previously refused to serve black and brown people, when faced with a sharp reduction in their custom, were glad to serve anybody, and welcomed everybody with open arms, even those wearing turbans. Those are the difficulties that we encountered in the early formative years of the legislation.
I have been breathalysed twice when driving from my surgery. The first time was some time ago, because I have now learnt my lesson. On that occasion, one of the councillors with whom I shared my surgery wanted to take me to the nearest pub to have a chat. He bought me a double whisky, which I do not normally drink, but as he was paying, I accepted it with open arms. Down the road we went, and I was pulled in near Southall police station. The policeman did not know me, but I do not think that he would have acted any differently if he had recognised me.
Fortunately, I was not over the top, but the experience frightened me. I did not want to be a companion of those other hon. Members who have been done under the breathalyser test and have then had to issue a public apology. Because I do not want to be put in that position and because that experience frightened me so much, I do not drink and drive nowadays. If any action to which the House can agree will push people in that direction, so much the better.
On the other occasion when I was breathalysed, I had had only a couple of cups of tea at a local Indian social, but I was pulled up in Hayes. I served in Committee on the Bill that introduced the existing regulations on deterrents. Of course, policemen always call one "Sir", and this young man said to me, "Well, sir, you were driving erratically." That was what had given him the suspicion that I might he drunk. I said, "I do not remember us including 'suspicion of driving erratically' in the legislation. I always drive erratically." That shows that breath testing used to happen on the basis of suspicion, but that we are now moving to the new idea of random breath testing.
I am sorry that the Government are not allowing their Members to vote according to their consciences. I do not agree with the suggestion that the new clause is an attempt by teetotallers to take it out on drinkers. I agree entirely that the new clause would be a step forward in the fight against drunken driving, and I wish it all success. I hope that Conservative Members who agree with my attitude to the new clause will join us in the Lobby and will say, "Throw this three-line Whip out of the window."

Mr. Conal Gregory: There cannot be any right hon. or hon. Member who at some stage has not lost a constituent or a constituent's child as a result of a drink-driving case. Alcohol contributes to an estimated one in 10 of all road traffic accidents in the United Kingdom. As we have heard, it causes over 800 deaths and a staggering 22,000 casualties each year. However, more than a quarter of male drivers and one in five female drivers believe that their blood alcohol concentration has exceeded the legal limit at some time in the previous year. It is true that inroads have been made into the problem of drink-driving during the past decade. I welcome the detailed speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) as part of that statistical debate, although that is about the point where my hon. Friend and I diverge.
Further deterrents are needed, of which the random breath testing that is proposed in the all-party new clause would be one, but only one, way forward. However, based on evidence from other countries, that deterrent should work. We should not dismiss such evidence out of hand.
In a recent survey, 42 per cent. of people who admitted to drinking and driving thought that they ran little risk of detection. As long as people think that they can get away with it, the penalties will not work. Stopping the offence is clearly better than punishment—and the police agree. Mr. Peter Joslin, the chairman of the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, has said:
A deterrence-based enforcement system is far more effective in reducing drink-drive fatalities than the traditional enforcement model.
At present, the police can require a breath test in three circumstances. As there seems to be a little confusion in the House about this matter, I shall reiterate those three circumstances clearly. First, the police can require a breath test when the driver is suspected of having alcohol in his or her body; secondly, when a moving traffic offence has been committed; and thirdly, when the driver has been involved in an accident. The police also have the general power to stop a vehicle at any time.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because he has made precisely the point that the police have the general power to stop vehicles. Like the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), I too have been stopped and


breathalysed. It happened just before Christmas. When I stepped out of the car, the policeman said, "This is a routine check, sir." If that is not random stopping and effectively random breath testing, I do not know what is, because the policeman then asked me whether I had been drinking. I confirmed that I had, but thankfully I did not even register on the machine.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) owes it to the House to make a much better case than he and the hon. Members supporting the new clause have done so far, because there are already sufficient powers. Indeed, when I told the policeman that the House was debating the point that very evening, he said, "Sir, we have enough powers as it is, but if you want to give us some more, that's fine by us."

Mr. Gregory: With respect, my hon. Friend jumped into the argument a little prematurely. The next time that he is stopped, he can refer to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. With respect, the correlation between that section and random breath testing seems to have escaped him. I did not go on to make that analogy; I merely referred to the occasions when a police officer in uniform can stop any person driving a vehicle. I have not yet gone on to extrapolate that argument in terms of random breath testing, but if my hon. Friend will bear with me for a little longer, I shall do so.
According to case law, the three circumstances to which I have referred may be combined. A police officer may stop any vehicle to establish suspicion that the driver has been drinking, after which the breath test may be required. The police argue that establishing grounds for suspicion before testing should be unnecessary and that they should have unrestricted powers to require a breath test.
The new clause provides for random breath testing at roadside checkpoints, and the regulations included in the new clause would permit roadside checks at which either all vehicles or a sample of vehicles could be stopped by a constable in uniform for the administration of breath tests. Roadside checkpoints would be authorised in writing and clearly signposted.
As a deterrent to drinking before driving, the great virtues of the new clause are its visibility and the fact that roadside testing could be encountered anywhere at any time, although there is no reason why testing should not be targeted. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety favours the new clause, as do many other experts and members of the public. In due course, I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic summon all the agencies and organisations at his command which oppose the view of PACTS. In an intervention, he referred to the Royal Automobile Club. The view of the RAC is ambiguous, as my hon. Friend should know from its press notice. I am sure that he has many other organisations at his command which support his argument.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gregory: I am conscious of the time, but I will give way.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has done a great deal of research into the matter. Will he confirm that all that PACTS and other organisations wish to achieve is legal

under the present law? It is possible to have marked road checks and to test everyone except a driver who, after being stopped, is found not to have taken a drink, who has not been involved in an accident and who has not driven badly.

Mr. Gregory: Rather than considering exceptions, I am concerned to deter people. When enshrined in statute law, the new clause should be used not only to deter but to catch people. My hon. Friend constantly looks at the exceptions and perhaps introduces an element of the civil liberties argument, which I shall come to in a moment.
Experience abroad, notably in Scandinavia and in most of Australia, supports the case for the new clause. New South Wales has been referred to frequently tonight. Many in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association must have visited New South Wales, judging by the number of hon. Members who seem to be aware of that fine state. In the first four years of random breath testing there, the average number of fatal or serious accidents related to alcohol fell by one third. That is a telling and practical argument which my hon. Friend the Minister should bear in mind.
One aspect has been referred to only obliquely. If there were ever any doubt about the new clause, it should be dispelled by this aspect. We are debating the measure as a motoring matter. If Department of Health Ministers and those responsible for budgeting for the health service were present tonight—they are not—they would be in favour of the amendment. The hospital and social security savings in New South Wales were over 20 times the initial cost of implementing the scheme. If the new clause does not find favour tonight—I hope that it will—such a measure might be included in the Finance Bill after the Budget on 19 March. The measure would certainly appeal to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health.
An argument which is sometimes used against random breath testing is that the rate of detection is low. Up to a point, that was the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. However, no one suggests that random breath testing should be a substitute for existing procedures. It would be an additional weapon in the armoury of the police. Only in the completely impartial context of roadside checkpoints would the requirement for establishing suspicion be waived. The impartiality of random breath testing is a crucial aspect.

Mr. Michael Irvine: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gregory: I must make progress. I am mindful of the time and the admonitions of the Chief Whip.
Over 77 per cent. of people interviewed in a Government survey last September praised the impartial aspect of random breath testing.
New clause 2 provides for the introduction of random breath testing. By that I mean that the police will be able to breath-test randomly selected samples of drivers without reasonable cause for suspicion at specially designated roadside checkpoints authorised by a senior police officer.
I stress that it would not give the police unfettered discretion to breath-test any driver anywhere at any time. It is an additional power, which provides an element of deterrence which is difficult to achieve under current procedures and which is so important for reducing road


deaths. I am convinced that there is substantial support among professional, public and parliamentary opinion for this change in the drink-driving law.
It is essential that the message from the House tonight is that drinking and driving do not mix. The power to deter that lethal concoction is with right hon. and hon. Members, and I urge them to accept this straightforward new clause.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I wish to detain the House for a few minutes to discuss some important aspects of the new clause. The first is the matter of definitions. The definition of the word "random" is important. It is clear that some hon. Members are under the impression that the new clause asks for a power that would virtually give the police permission to stop anyone they chose at any time and any place. That is not my understanding of the term "random".
A random number generator, as any statistician would agree, produces random numbers by choice, by means of a computer or, more simply, by taking numbers out of a bag, as in a lottery. For example, if 150,000 establishments which sell alcohol, such as hotels, pubs, clubs and so on, were chosen by a random number generator and one was the House of Commons, the police would be obliged to carry out checks at the exit of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: They would have a field day.

Sir Ian Lloyd: They might, but there might be other places, in the country where they would have an equally good field day. If it was established that every 10th, 20th or 50th car should be checked, and the 50th car going out of the gate was that of the Prime Minister, his car would have to be stopped under genuine random testing.
The second definition with which I wish to deal is the difference between drink-driving and drunken driving. For perfectly understandable reasons, many hon. Members use the two terms as if they were entirely interchangeable. Sometimes, they take the absolutist view that there should be no drink-driving when, effectively, they mean that there should be no drunken driving. The scale of the problem clearly defines the difference. t have already given all the figures to the House, and I shall not detain it by doing so again tonight, but a clear distinction must be made between a system with the legitimate objective, of catching the incompetent, dangerous, drunken driver—someone who is over the limit—and a system directed with vast resources at the rest of the driving community.
I state once again with all the force at my command that, in a free society, we cannot attempt to use motor vehicles—22 million of them—to enforce prohibition, which is what a zero limit would be. Even if there were no legal zero limit, the social idea expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)—that whether or not it is a legal offence, it is a moral offence to take any drink and get into a motor car and drive—is an absolutist view. We could never achieve that objective in a free society.
As one gets nearer to the limit, so the processes of enforcement become more rigorous. I have argued before on the Floor of the House that, even if the death penalty were attached to drunken driving, in a free society there would still be those who would take the risk.
My main argument is based on an entirely different set of premises. The House—and, in a sense, the Government—continues to adhere to an old technology or set of institutions. I find that difficult to understand. We are always reluctant to say, "Here is a solution which we know could work and which, if it worked, would work perfectly." As I have shown in more ways than one, the technology is clear and is being applied elsewhere. One Opposition Member said that people should lose their jobs if convicted of drunken driving. I believe that in certain circumstances they should not lose their jobs.
In California, where there is considerable experience in the matter, the use of the breathalyser ignition lock enables a person who has been involved in a case of drink-driving which was not serious to be given a lesser sentence. It is not necessary for a driver to lose his or her job.
Some hon. Members may have seen an excellent programme some time ago on television; I think it was "Horizon". It dealt with traffic problems in Los Angeles and showed some of the ways being developed all over the world to deal with the problem of the motor car. One thing which struck me forcibly was that we saw eight or nine vehicles going along a motorway, completely under computer control, some with the driver in the back seat. We are not there yet. It may be 10 to 15 years before it will be illegal for anyone who is over the legal limit of alcohol consumption to take a car on to a motorway. The technology will exist to prevent accidents, and it will be safer and better than human judgment.
If we are serious, we may say that, by the year 2000, every motor vehicle shall be fitted with a breathalyser ignition lock. If that takes place, it will be impossible for anyone to drink and drive unless the driver cuts the wires, and that would be a serious offence. The technology might exist for a central register to show that he had done so.
Do we want to eliminate drunken driving, or do we not? If we want to bring it down to zero, that is the way to do it. If it is not the way to do it, I should like to see a better way. If that is the target that we must achieve, will we do so by using deterrence, which will involve vast police forces trying to achieve by random breath testing the final eliminator test? Do we do it in that way, or do we say, "Here is a technology which enables the human being to reconcile his wish to drive his motor car and also to drink up to the point where, if he is in the least dangerous, he cannot physically do so"?
If the limit of 80 mg is too high, we can bring it down to 50 mg. If 50 mg is too high, we can bring it down to 30 mg. If 30 mg is too high, we can bring it down to zero. But at every stage of the reduction, I believe that the case that I have made in my proposed new clauses for self-breathalysing and subsequently for the use of a breathalyser ignition lock becomes stronger and stronger. I ask the Minister to give us the Government's view on my proposals.

Mr. Allason: I should like to share with the House my experience of the breathalyser, both as a police officer who has administered it and as a motorist who has been breathalysed. During the period that I spent in the police, I was satisfied that I had the equivalent of the power proposed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). When I was breathalysed shortly before Christmas two years ago, I had not been drinking. When asked by the police officer who stopped me on the Embankment whether I had had a drink, I denied it. He


nevertheless administered the breath test, which was negative. But examples surely show that we already have the power.
The hon. Lady gave two platforms for the new clause. The first was public pressure. I am reluctant ever to criticise the Labour party for adopting Conservative policies, but I urge it not to adopt the policy of proposing amendments like the new clause in order to be seen to be doing something, or to be responding to what is termed public pressure. The Government have made a habit of doing that. I point to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and to the Football Spectators Act 1989 as two classic examples of the Government misconceiving legislation and bringing it before the House.
The second plank of the hon. Lady's platform was the deterrent value—the likelihood of being caught. I entirely agree with her that the likelihood of being caught is indeed the principal element in deterring criminal activity. If we analyse what she is suggesting, it means greater police deployment in that sphere of activity. I interpret that as meaning greater interference with the operational decision-making which is the responsibility of chief police officers.
There is a hard core of persistent offenders, and the only way to change their behaviour is to change the culture and make it unacceptable to buy rounds for people who will later be driving.
It has been said that organisations such as the Consumers Association and the National Council for Civil Liberties support random testing. There is a belief that random testing is a panacea, but it is not. The police do not want such a power. They already have the powers that they need. I therefore urge the House to oppose the new clause.

Mr. John Browne: I wish briefly to support the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has spoken ably on it, and I agree with almost every word that he said.
Of course, to have legislation on random breath testing is a curb on individual freedom, but we already accept curbs on individual freedom. We have to drive on the left of the road, we have to wear safety belts, and we have to obey the highway code. Those are all curbs on individual freedom, but they are all designed for safety and that is the purpose of the new clause.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who made a persuasive argument, but as a layman I still believe that the new clause would have a deterrent value, although the powers already exist. That value is enormous in relation to the human suffering of those involved, in relation to the human anguish of the relatives of those involved, and in relation to money for the national health service and the taxpayer. I believe that about £600 million per year is involved.
As a deterrent, the new clause would help to save lives. I support it, and I urge the House to do likewise. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider his opposition to the new clause and to remember that we demand these standards of airline pilots, bus drivers and train drivers. I believe that we should bring in the new clause as a deterrent to drink-driving.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I support random breath testing, but not the nonsense of the new clause. I cannot

think of any single way in which the police could more infuriate ordinary drivers than to have such a roadside test. Whenever I am stopped at a roadside checkpoint, I get infuriated. If we want to improve relations between the public and the police, the new clause is not the way to do it.
The kind of random breath testing that I favour is the kind that we already enjoy. I do not say that with any great pleasure. The fact is that police officers can stop the driver of a car and, whether they pretend or whether they have real justification for doing so, they can inflict a breath test upon anyone. The trouble is not that that is being done, but that the public do not perceive that there is a power of random breath testing.
We could fulfil a useful purpose if we made it clear to the public that there is random breath testing already, that it is already legal and that they had better watch out when they drink and drive, because they may be stopped and disqualified. That is the random breath testing which it is within my bounds to support as one who believes in the freedom of the individual.

8 pm

Mr. Chope: We have had a three-hour debate and I doubt whether anything that I could say would have much influence on the way in which hon. Members will vote. This has been a debate about random breath testing, although the better expression might be untargeted breath testing, because that is what the proponents of the new clause are arguing for. The House is united in its condemnation of those who drive with excess alcohol. Where there have been differences in the debate, they have been about the means to the end—of reducing the numbers who drink and drive and thereby the numbers who are killed and maimed as a result.
It is unworthy of those who support the new clause to accuse those who do not of being complacent or uncaring about road safety. The Government are proud of their record on road safety and, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) pointed out, we have the best road safety record in the European Community.
Government policy on this issue has been arrived at after the most careful and rational analysis of the evidence and arguments. On 1 February 1989, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), when Home Secretary, initiated the debate, in response to a request from the police, for more powers. References to the background to that were made during the debate, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).
As a result, there was public consultation. It emerged from that that there was much public ignorance about the extent of the powers that the police have. To clarify the position, on Tuesday 5 November 1989 the Attorney-General, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), set out the legal position. It is not necessary for me to recite that again tonight.
That position ensures that the police have power to stop motorists whom they wish to stop and then to ask for a breath test of motorists whom they suspect of drinking, of being involved in accidents or of moving road traffic offences. The Government view is that the existing powers strike the right balance between the need for effective enforcement of the law and the freedom of the individual.
The arguments on the other side have been largely concerned with the issue of deterrence. I think that, in the end, perception and reality over time have a tendency to coincide. We saw in the examples from New South Wales, and earlier from France, that, as soon as there was a change in the law, people thought that a random test was just around the corner, and as a result there was a reduction in the incidence of drink driving. But that was only a temporary phenomenon. It is more important that there should be a change of attitude.
One can see the difference in connection with speeding. I do not think there has been a change yet in attitude towards speeding, and that is why, when one observes police vehicles going along a motorway, most people, if they are sensible, reduce their speed while in the vicinity of those police vehicles. But as soon as they have gone past, they increase their speed.
In connection with drink driving, we do not think that the incidence of a large number of road checkpoints would add significantly to deterrence. Indeed, Government policy is to use public progaganda advertising for the purposes and to try to create a public atmosphere in which drink driving is not tolerated.
The Legal and General Insurance Company, following a recent Gallup survey, found that 84 per cent. of people said that, as a result of Government advertising, they had been made to think twice about drinking and driving. That is a more cost-effective way of proceeding than spending £12 million a year in police time setting up road blocks at which probably fewer than one in 100 of the people tested would be found to have been a drink-driver.

Mr. Day: My hon. Friend seems to have overlooked the fact that, as a number of hon. Members pointed out, the exercise in New South Wales proved to be cost-effective.

Mr. Chope: I had not intended to mention New South Wales in detail. There is a code of guidance there, and my hon. Friend and others will be interested to know that as part of that code says:
A random breath testing station is not to be established in the immediate vicinity of licensed premises.
I do not understand why that provision is included. Many people who support the principle of the new clause may be concerned when they analyse what might be contained in the controls that would be introduced under it.
This has been a high-quality debate. We had moments of passionate intensity and serious deliberation and we had expressions of brotherly love in the Labour party, as exemplified by the exchanges between the hon. Members for Bassetlaw and for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The latter called his honourable enemy a twit, which elicted the memorable response from the hon. Gentleman that he was speaking as a working-class Labour voter. On the evidence of tonight's debate, working-class Labour voters may be an endangered species, and we should place a preservation order on the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.

Mr. Ashton: I should put it on record that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) apologised for losing his temper. I accepted his apology and we are now the best of friends.

Mr. Chope: On that happy note, I shall resume my seat.

Ms. Ruddock: I shall delay the House for only a few moments to respond to the debate on the new clause that stands in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends.
I regret that the Minister concluded his remarks in the way he did, because this has been an extremely serious debate. We should concentrate our thoughts on the main issue involved, that of deaths and injuries. During the debate, a number of myths have been peddled by those who oppose the idea of random breath testing, and they have suggested that the powers to have random breath tests already exist. They do not. What is being used by some police forces in Britain is a combination of the power randomly to stop combined, with the power to test on suspicion. Those two powers have been combined by some chief police officers in a way that has not been authorised by the House and is a combination of powers that many other police forces have chosen not to use.
By tabling the new clause, we seek in no way to remove those powers from the police. We have no intention of trying to end targeted testing, of which we thoroughly approve and which has produced good results by reducing the number of drink-related accidents. We seek to add an additional power to permit truly randomised testing. That testing would be accountable. It would not distinguish between people—types, classes and so on—but would say, in effect, "If your car is passing a random test point and you are a chosen number, you will be stopped for a legitimate purpose," and that purpose would be to deter those who choose to break the law by drinking and driving.
This is not, as has been suggested, a response by my party designed to court popularity. I have called in aid the support of the general public. That supports our case, and we cite it because we are convinced that, if our proposal were introduced, it would have public support. So the public would understand what it was all about and would be willing to co-operate in its implementation.
I remind the House that 800 deaths per annum are involved in this argument. My hon. Friends and I believe that if we can do something to help reduce that number of deaths, we should do it. We are convinced of our case. There is room for improvement on all that has been done by the Government to date. For that reason alone, we urge support for the new clause.
Confident though we are of our case, we have allowed our Members a free vote. I hope, with hon. Members anxious to vote on the issue, that those on the Government Benches who support us will have the courage to follow their consciences.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 265.

Division No. 81]
[8.9 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joseph


Alton, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bidwell, Sydney


Armstrong, Hilary
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Boyes, Roland


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Battle, John
Browne, John (Winchester)


Beckett, Margaret
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Beggs, Roy
Caborn, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Cartwright, John






Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clay, Bob
McKelvey, William


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McLeish, Henry


Cohen, Harry
McMaster, Gordon


Corbett, Robin
McNamara, Kevin


Cryer, Bob
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Darling, Alistair
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marek, Dr John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Day, Stephen
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Dobson, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Doran, Frank
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Douglas, Dick
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mudd, David


Eadie, Alexander
Mullin, Chris


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Evans, John (St Helens N)
O'Brien, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
O'Hara, Edward


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Faulds, Andrew
Pendry, Tom


Fearn, Ronald
Prescott, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fisher, Mark
Redmond, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Reid, Dr John


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Jo


Galloway, George
Robertson, George


George, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rooker, Jeff


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rooney, Terence


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Gordon, Mildred
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Gould, Bryan
Ruddock, Joan


Graham, Thomas
Salmond, Alex


Gregory, Conal
Sedgemore, Brian


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Sheerman, Barry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Short, Clare


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Haynes, Frank
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hinchliffe, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Kilfedder, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Kirkwood, Archy
Wallace, James


Lamond, James
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Leighton, Ron
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lewis, Terry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Livsey, Richard
Wilson, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Winnick, David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Loyden, Eddie
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McAllion, John



McAvoy, Thomas
Tellers for the Ayes:


McCartney, Ian
Mrs. Maria Fyfe and


Macdonald, Calum A.
Dr. Lewis Moonie.


McFall, John





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Baldry, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Allason, Rupert
Batiste, Spencer


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Benyon, W.


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashton, Joe
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Atkins, Robert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter





Body, Sir Richard
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harris, David


Boswell, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Hawkins, Christopher


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hayes, Jerry


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bowis, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Brazier, Julian
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bright, Graham
Hill, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hind, Kenneth


Budgen, Nicholas
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Burns, Simon
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butler, Chris
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Butterfill, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Irvine, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Irving, Sir Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Jack, Michael


Cash, William
Jackson, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Janman, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Churchill, Mr
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert


Colvin, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Conway, Derek
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knapman, Roger


Cope, Rt Hon John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cormack, Patrick
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Couchman, James
Knowles, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Knox, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Latham, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lawrence, Ivan


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Devlin, Tim
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dicks, Terry
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lord, Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Eggar, Tim
Maclean, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Evennett, David
Madel, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Malins, Humfrey


Fallon, Michael
Mans, Keith


Favell, Tony
Marlow, Tony


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mates, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maude, Hon Francis


Forth, Eric
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Franks, Cecil
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fraser, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Freeman, Roger
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


French, Douglas
Miller, Sir Hal


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mitchell, Sir David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moate, Roger


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gorst, John
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Needham, Richard


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hague, William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)






Norris, Steve
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Page, Richard
Sumberg, David


Paice, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Pawsey, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thorne, Neil


Portillo, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Price, Sir David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Rathbone, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Trippier, David


Riddick, Graham
Turner, Dennis


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walden, George


Rost, Peter
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Stanbrook, Ivor



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Stern, Michael
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Stevens, Lewis

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

DESIGNATION OF PARKING CONTROL AUTHORITY

'After section 95 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 there shall be inserted—

"95A(1) The Secretary of State may in the circumstances specified in subsection (2) below and subject to subsection (5) below by Order designate any Metropolitan District Highway Authority in a Metropolitan County as a parking control authority.

(2) The Secretary of State shall make an Order under this section in respect of any metropolitan county area where—

(a) he has been requested to do so by all the Metropolitan District Highway Authorities in the relevant county; and
(b) he is satisfied that the designation in necessary having regard to—

(i) the level of unenforced contraventions of the law relating to stationary vehicles in the area concerned;
(ii) the transport policies of the authorities concerned; and
(iii) the effect of the level of unenforced contraventions on these policies.

(3) Before making an Order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult any Police Authority all or part of whose area comprises the metropolitan county concerned.

(4) Any Order made under this section shall—


(a)specify under which provisions of this Act regulations may be enforced by the parking control authorities in the Metropolitan County concerned;
(b) provide for the contravention of regulations made under those provisions to cease to be a criminal offence;
(c) specify the means by which the parking control authorities shall discharge their responsibilities under this section.

(5) No Order may be made under this section before 1st January 1994.".'.—[Ms. Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the new clause will be to allow the Secretary of State to designate metropolitan district councils as parking control authorities. He would have to be satisfied that designation was necessary because the level of unenforced parking contraventions in the area concerned was undermining local transport policies. The powers provided by the new clause would not be used until 1994.
The new clause is necessary because part II deals with parking enforcement exclusively in relation to London. The highways committee of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is concerned, and the Opposition share that concern, that parking problems in the major urban areas outside London are increasing rapidly and that action is needed in relation to them as well as in the context of London. That view is shared by the AMA's public transport committee, which is concerned about the effect of illegal parking on the reliability of bus services.
The best detailed information on the problems of enforcement is from joint police and highway authority studies of parking enforcement in Sheffield and Rotherham, commissioned by the Home Office working party on parking enforcement.
In Sheffield, surveys were carried out in three areas, including 20 per cent. of the city centre. Agreed beats were patrolled between five and 10 times over two days. The surveys adopted the same five-minute loading rules as that adopted by traffic wardens. The Sheffield survey found that fewer than 1 per cent. of vehicles found parking on yellow lines in the city centre had been served with a parking ticket. It found 55 vehicles parked on yellow lines in a northern part of Sheffield and 49 in part of south Sheffield. None had been subject to enforcement action.
The Rotherham survey was carried out on a similar basis. In Rotherham town centre, 132 vehicles were found parked on yellow lines, only one of which had been the subject of enforcement. In the outer areas surveyed, 47 contraventions were spotted, but not one parking ticket was seen.
Those surveys show that only a minute proportion of vehicles found on yellow lines had been served with a parking ticket. In response to that finding, the police state that the contraventions found were often in side streets and had resulted in no major congestion or road safety problem. On that basis, they argue that the findings did not support the case for change outside London.
The AMA highways committee accepts that many of the contraventions found in the Sheffield and Rotherham studies did not result in major congestion or road safety


problems, but it does not accept that that in any way undermines the case for change. The fact is that the law is not being enforced.
It is particularly important to understand the police view and their objective, which is parking enforcement strictly in the narrow terms of maintaining the free flow of traffic. Yet parking is increasingly also being viewed as an important transport policy. The availability of parking space can be an important influence on a person's decision whether to travel by car or by public transport. The availability of additional free parking space—that is, unenforced parking on yellow lines—can seriously undermine broader transport policies designed to encourage greater use of public service vehicles.
It is also important to acknowledge that yellow lines are introduced for a range of reasons other than maintaining the free flow of traffic on main routes. Local traffic management and environmental considerations are often, and increasingly important. Those are local authority rather than police objectives, but the responsibility for allocating enforcement resources rests with the police.
Concern is not confined to south Yorkshire. For example, Manchester city council is currently lobbying for parking enforcement powers to be transferred to its authority. Its proposals are based on the important role that parking policies are likely to play in transport strategy designed to tackle that city's worsening problem of road congestion.
When the subject was discussed in Committee, the Minister rejected out of hand the case for change outside London. He said that the view of the Home Office working party was
that the most pressing problems were in London. That is why we have brought forward proposals in the Bill to deal with the problems in London.
The Minister acknowledged that problems existed outside the capital, but maintained that they could be resolved by improved liaison between the police and highway authorities, but the Minister's remarks included a glimmer of hope for the future. He said:
There is not sufficient evidence to warrant changing parking regimes outside London, but that will be reviewed in the light of the experience of the coming months and years in London.
We accept that the most pressing problems are in London, but that fact in itself is not a reason for not taking action in relation to other urban areas. The new clause is intended to meet most of the Minister's concerns.
First, the powers available in the clause could not be exercised until 1994. That is intended to enable trends in the other urban areas to be monitored, experience to be gained with the new arrangements in London, and discussions to take place between local highways and police authorities. If the new clause is accepted today, the legislation will be ready once those new steps have been taken.
The new clause is deliberately drawn in flexible terms. If the Secretary of State were allowed to determine by order the range of powers to be given to parking control authorities, he would be able to take on board the lessons learned in London.
In Committee, when debating the issue, the Minister further said:
It is fair to say that local authorities sometimes abuse yellow lines by painting them on the road against the advice

of the police. If the police advise against, it is hardly surprising that there is not much enforcement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 5 February 1991; c. 324–29.]
That goes to the heart of the problem. Highway authorities introduce parking restrictions for a range of reasons—including, increasingly, support of broad transport objectives. Yet the enforcement of those restrictions—the decision, as the Minister suggests, whether they are enforced or not—is left to the police who, in relation to parking, have two important but narrow objectives—maintaining the free flow of traffic and protecting road safety on main routes.
The way ahead does not lie in the direction set by the Minister, who, in practice, has given the police carte blanche not to enforce restrictions with which they do not agree. The way forward involves vesting public policy making, regulation making and enforcement in one authority—the local highway authority.
The Minister's response also highlights a contradiction between the recognition now being given by his Department to the importance of parking to transport policy and his attitude to enforcement. The new clause attempts to address the issue head on by including as factors which Ministers must take into account when designating a parking control authority the transport policies of the areas concerned and the impact of the level of enforcement of those policies.
The Minister may well argue about the wording of the new clause, but that is not important at this stage of the Bill's process. What is important is that the Minister should acknowledge that parking enforcement is a problem in urban areas outside London; that it is likely that changes to the enforcement regime will be needed to tackle those problems in due course; that experience in London could provide valuable lessons for other areas; and that it would be sensible to take enabling powers in the Bill so that steps could be taken to tackle the problem outside London, as soon as the Department and the police accept the local authorities' case for change. That stage may not be reached in the immediate future, but it will almost certainly be reached before further parliamentary time is found for this important area of debate.

Mr. Chope: I cannot accept the amendment. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has explained, it is along similar lines to one that we discussed at considerable length in Committee. I said then that part II of the Bill had been brought forward largely in response to detailed consideration of the issues by a working party chaired by the Home Office during 1987 and 1988. Its report concluded that the problem was in London and that, although it is not true to say that there are no problems outside London, we should tackle the problems there first.
8.30 pm
In Committee, I said that it ought to be possible to arrive at a reasonable accommodation on appropriate levels of enforcement effort for traffic and parking controls in the provinces, given that the county is both the police and the highway authority. In many cases, that is what happens in practice.
As the hon. Lady reminded us, I also said that we would reconsider this matter in the light of experience. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a flexible attitude to the subject and that, if he were persuaded of the need to extend these powers outside


London, he would have no hesitation in introducing the necessary legislation. At this stage there is no case for proceding in that manner.

Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister have any thoughts on how many years it will be before congestion problems in other major cities reach the stage that they have now reached in London? Does he believe that associated problems and the need to enforce parking restraints are relevant to that?

Mr. Chope: I cannot speculate. There is some significance in the fact that no authority outside London has requested the introduction of wheel clamping powers from the Secretary of State, which suggests that authorities have not yet exhausted the enforcement mechanisms available to them under existing powers. Authorities can also employ their own parking attendants to enforce excess charges at paid-for parking meters on the streets, and few authorities yet do so. Those authorities which are introducing new parking controls—whether with meters, parking vouchers, or pay-and-display schemes—find that they can help to achieve their traffic objectives, as well as yield a satisfactory financial return.
I am not sure whether there is a demand for the changes that the hon. Lady suggests. Even if we had sound

'For Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Prosecution and Punishment of Offenders) Part 1 (Offences under the Road Traffic Act) RTA section 143, there shall be substituted:


(1) Provision creating offence
(2) General nature of offence
(3) Mode of prosecution
(4) Punishment
(5) Disqualification
(6) Endorsement
(7) Penalty Points


Offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (continued)


RTA section 143
Using motor vehicle while
(a) summarily
6 months or level 5
Discretionary
Obligatory
6–8



uninsured or unsecured against third-party risks
(b) on indictment
12 months or a fine or both
Discretionary
Obligatory
8.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gale: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 17 seeks to reintroduce a custodial sentence for driving while uninsured. This was thoroughly discussed in Committee and I do not want to detain the House long on the subject tonight. However, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the great concern that has been expressed by the Magistrates Association, among others, about the inability to impose anything other than a fine for the free-standing offence of driving uninsured.
I am acutely aware that, in many cases, magistrates have powers to impose other sentences because driving uninsured occurs as an offence on its own on relatively rare occasions. However, there are slightly more than 200,000 convictions each year for driving uninsured, which leads me to believe that at any one time the number of people driving uninsured is somewhere in the region of 500,000. Apart from those involved in other offences—for example, theft of a car for use in a burglary or taking and driving away, which account for a number of cases—it is clear that there is a hard core of people who take a calculated risk. Rather like those who knowingly choose not to pay for a television licence, in the belief that they may get away with it, there is a hard core of people who decide, with malice

evidence for extending our proposals beyond London, it is by no means certain that we would want to limit those powers to metropolitan districts in the way that the new clause does. Why should they be singled out? If the principle were agreed, it would be reasonable to consider extending the powers to the counties as well.

Ms. Ruddock: We limited powers to the metropolitan districts because we have received evidence that it is in those areas that the problem is perceived as being worse. That is the reason for the limitation in the new clause.

Mr. Chope: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but it is not necessary to repeat why the Government feel that the new clause should not be accepted. It does not mean that some of the powers that will soon be implemented in London may not be applicable to provincial areas at some stage in the future. We are not ruling that out, but it would be wrong to include the new clause in the Bill.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 17

PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDERS

aforethought, that in the long run it is cheaper not to pay for insurance. Clearly that is worrying. They may get away with it for quite a long time and, as things stand, they may save money.

Yesterday, the House carried the Criminal Justice Bill through its final stages. It provided for an increase in the level of fine to more than £2,000. I do not wish to pretend that that is not an improvement and that it is not likely to be some deterrent. However, the courts feel that there is a case for enabling them to impose a community service order on people who drive uninsured.

In 1974, the custodial sentence for this offence was abolished. That was first moved by the Conservative Government in the first half of 1974. The Bill was picked up and carried through by the Labour Government which was elected in 1974. The Bill faced fierce opposition in Committee but was carried on the Floor of the House. The sentence was abolished because the Government—it is fair to say that both sides of the House agreed—felt that the custodial sentence was, in most cases, too draconian, and I agree. When the House took that decision in 1974, the community service order was not on the statute book. As the House knows, community service orders depend on a custodial sentence. Magistrates would like the opportunity to impose community service orders, which they believe


would be more effective than a fine in some cases, because of the inconvenience caused to the person concerned. There is a feeling that fines are generally treated lightly and with some disdain. Only rarely does the bench—or, in the case of a trial on indictment, the court—find it necessary to impose a prison sentence. The problem is that the custodial sentence, which the House is trying to recommend less, in general, is the key to the community service order.

As I have said, I do not wish to be doctrinaire about the matter. The problem caused by those who drive without insurance is important. It would indeed have been highlighted in three new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), which I had intended to move for him, but I am afraid that I let him down very badly. I sprinted along the corridor, but did not quite make it in time. My hon. Friend the Minister will remember, as I do, that there was unanimity on the issue in Committee, and I had the distinct impression at the time that my hon. Friend was not entirely opposed to the amendment that we discussed then.

I accept that what the House decides to do—I hope that it will decide to do something—must be in keeping with both the Criminal Justice Bill, which we passed last night and which is now in the other place, and the other sentencing proposals in this Bill. I know that my hon. Friend has already considered the matter carefully, but I ask him to continue to do so, and, if necessary, to tell me that he is prepared to table an amendment in another place if it is felt that my proposals are too draconian or out of keeping with the general context of both the Criminal Justice Bill and the Road Traffic Bill.

Mr. Allason: Driving without insurance is a serious offence: anyone without insurance causing an accident involving injury will ensure that the victim is not compensated. Not many people know that the Motor Insurers Bureau exists to compensate those involved with another vehicle so that their own vehicle can be repaired. The new clause has a deterrent value; another deterrent would be provided by the adoption of a disc along the lines of the road fund licence disc, which, if displayed in the car, would prove that the driver was insured. It is astonishing that anyone can buy a vehicle in this country without having to provide proof of an insurance policy. The only occasion when that needs to be done is when a vehicle needs to be retaxed: as we know from bitter experience, few people renew their road fund licences.
I urge the Government to accept the new clause.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) should not feel too concerned about his inability to be present for the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I would certainly have been prepared to consider the first seriously, in the light of what I knew that he wanted to say, although the second would have caused more difficulty.
Driving without insurance is a serious offence, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee supported the principle that it should be dealt with as such by the magistrates court. The new clause would make the offence triable on indictment, because a maximum penalty of six

months' imprisonment would be involved: if the sentence were limited to three months, it would be triable only in the magistrates court.
I believe that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to discuss the matter with our right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who is ultimately responsible for deciding on matters relating to imprisonment and on the maximum penalties. I know that my right hon. Friend is willing to discuss the issue with the Magistrates Association, on whose behalf my hon. Friend and others have spoken: indeed, it is because of the magistrates' interest in the issue that we are discussing it today.
8.45 pm
I know that my right hon. Friend is also willing to consider the possibility of increasing the maximum financial penalty even further, to the maximum penalty that the magistrates are empowered to impose. That would not deal with my hon. Friend's anxiety about the magistrates' ability to impose community service orders; it would, however, show the extent of the Government's concern about the offence of driving without insurance.
In the seven years between 1975 and 1982, the number of such offences increased by 60,000; in the seven-year period between 1982 and 1989, it increased by only about 17,000. The rate of increase is slowing, at a time when the number of private cars on the road has increased by some 30 per cent. and the number of road traffic offences has increased by 38 per cent. My hon. Friend is right in saying that, in many cases, driving without insurance was not the most serious offence—other offences were involved, such as taking a motor vehicle without authority, which used to be called taking and driving away—but in 1989 it was the most serious offence to be tried by the courts in about 127,000 cases.
Disqualification clearly protects the public from uninsured drivers by removing them from the roads, and, given the level of penalty points, it will not be difficult to reach the stage of disqualification under the totting-up procedures. I think, however, that it would be wrong to base sentencing purely on the deterrent effect. Experience and evidence suggests that that is not always the most important issue, and that is why the approach of the Home Office is to base sentencing on the gravity of the offence. I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that the Government take the matter seriously and are willing to keep it under review, and that my right hon. Friend will be able to meet the Magistrates Association.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) raised an issue that has been raised many times in the past: the desirability of insurance certificates being displayed on windscreens. That happens in some other countries, but we see severe practical problems in the practice, which would need the co-operation of the insurance companies and a specified period for the duration of the certificate. We consider that the present system of an annual or, in some cases, six-monthly road fund licence renewal—to qualify for which a driver must show his insurance certificate and, if the age of the vehicle makes that appropriate, his MOT certificate—is sufficient.
One of the biggest problems is that, in this country, a single insurance certificate can cover more than one driver and more than one vehicle. In France, insurance has traditionally been based on a single driver and a single


vehicle. Clearly, it would be much easier to have one certificate which would appear on the windscreen of the vehicle covered by the insurance.
I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to keep the matter under review. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Gale: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous understanding of the fact that hon. Members sometimes have to be in three places at once and for the undertaking that he has given, although not forced to do so. I hope that the matter can be dealt with in the other place. I warmly appreciate the time that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office gave me today and for his undertaking to meet the Magistrates Association to discuss the matter.
Clearly, the new clause would have ramifications that I did not wholly appreciate when I first tabled it, not least in terms of the general sentencing in context. I hope that the new clause will at least have shed some light on matters that require further discussion—I would not say, opened a can of worms. I hope that it will be possible to reconsider the matter in the other place. With that proviso, and with many thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19

PROHIBITION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON BYWAYS

'Before section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
"Prohibition of motor vehicles on byways

34a(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle on any byway he is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the motor vehicle was driven in contravention of subsection (1) above for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency.

(3) In this section 'lawful authority' does not include the exercise of a public right of way over a byway except where—

(a) the right of way is being exercised in connection with agricultural or forestry operations; or
(b) the exercise of the right of way has been authorised by an order under subsection (4) below.

(4) A local authority may, by order, grant authorisation for the use of motor vehicles on a byway in its area, and such authorisation may provide for use to be restricted to named persons, to a class of vehicle or to specified times.

(5) In this section—
'byways' means a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic; but which is used by the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are so used;
'local authority' has the same meaning as in section 33 above.".'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause arises from the concern expressed by many people—the Ramblers Association in particular—about the damage that can be done to footpaths by driving of motor vehicles upon them. The problem is becoming increasingly serious. Our byways—the green lanes in the Pennines, the ridgeways in the downlands and public footpaths throughout the country—are being seriously damaged and churned up, often by joy riders.
The problem needs to be tackled. The new clause makes it clear that we would not in any way want to inhibit access

for emergency vehicles or for genuine and legitimate farming and forestry purposes, but we must do everything we can to protect our byways, many of which are in glorious parts of our landscape and offer unparalled opportunities for recreation to many thousands of people. It is incumbent on us to do what we can to ensure that they are protected. The new clause seeks to do precisely that, and I hope that the Government will respond positively to it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this well-motivated and necessary new clause.

Mr. Chope: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
The law already makes adequate provision for the matters to which the hon. Gentlemen referred. Highway authorities are obliged under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to hold "definitive maps". These are open to inspection by the public and they record the status of routes in the locality. Routes presently shown as "road used as public paths" may be reclassified as footpaths or bridleways where there is no evidence of established vehicular rights. Where there are established vehicular rights, the routes must be shown as "byways open to all traffic". The definition is found in section 127 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and is one used in the new clause. Such a byway conveys a public right of way for vehicles, as the definition itself expressly states. That is how the law stands at present, and we believe that the procedures are satisfactory.
The new clause seeks to extinguish vehicular rights on byways open to all traffic, with exceptions only for emergencies and in respect of rights of way exercised in connection with agricultural or forestry operations and so on. "Procedure" is probably a misnomer for what is provided by the new clause, which simply gives a summary power to the local authority to grant "authorisations". The new clause is silent about the criteria against which these would be given, and the procedures to be followed. It represents an extraordinary withdrawal of long-established rights of way and would be extremely controversial were the House to accept it and incorporate it in law.

Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that most local authorities do not have definitive maps? Many give the excuse that they do not have the time or the staff to produce them. Apparently, the Minister requires such maps to be produced. How long will authorities have to produce them? I am thinking in particular of my own authority, Sefton. With my support, the ramblers have been asking for a definitive map for the past five or six years, and it has still not been done. Is there a time limit?

Mr. Chope: I am not aware that there is a time limit. We are talking about an Act of Parliament passed in 1981. I should certainly hope that local authorities are making some progress towards the establishment of definitive maps, as they are under an obligation to do just that. I shall look into the matter and ascertain whether authorities have until the millennium—or until the next millennium—to produce the maps, or whether they are under an obligation to do so sooner. Obviously, they


should be brought under some local political pressure, particularly in the light of concern about the unsuitable vehicular use of ancient byways.
In many cases, it should be possible to establish voluntary management arrangements, which would limit use by, for example, trail bikes or off-road vehicles. Representative bodies have sought to promote responsible use by bikers and four-wheel-drive users. That is a reasonable way in which to deal with the problem.

Mr. Chris Smith: I fear that the Minister's response is, indeed, disappointing. He places too much reliance on the possibility of voluntary management agreements, which do not always work and which are not always possible. He has failed to recognise the problem identified by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn)—the absence in a number of local authority areas of the definitive maps to which he devoted so much attention. He has also ignored the fact that there is undoubtedly a failure of enforcement even where definitive maps exist and the fact that, in some places—the green lanes are a classic case in point—where the supposed long-standing rights of vehicular access apply, there is none the less a serious problem with the destruction of our countryside heritage. The issue requires more attention and less complacency from the Government.
Of course I accept that the new clause, in setting out its objectives, is far from perfect. For example, it does not lay down criteria for the local authority concerned. That being the case, it probably would not be sensible to press it to a vote. However, I hope that the Government have noted that among hon. Members there is considerable concern about this matter. We shall certainly wish to return to it in due course.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

CAUSING DEATH BY CARELESS DRIVING WHEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRINK OR DRUGS.

9 pm

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, amendment No. 27, in page 2, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert—
'(c) he is, within 18 hours after that time, required to provide a specimen in pursuance of section 7 of this Act but without reasonable excuse fails to provide it,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30.

Mr. Chope: These amendments deal with a technical but important point relating to the refusal to provide a specimen where the new "causing death" offence is alleged. It is important that there be no built-in incentive to refuse a specimen in drink-drive cases, but there is also a need to have a proper safeguard. This amendment incorporates a safeguard—that a person who has refused to provide a specimen more than 18 hours after the incident to which it related would not be able to be convicted of failing to provide a specimen. The time limit is 18 hours: although

obviously not exact, it is a proxy for a maximum period during which a person whose level was more than three times over the limit would probably have his blood alcohol level reduced to within the limit.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 2, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'he'.

No. 29, in page 2, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 48.

No. 30, in page 3, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'above' and insert 'Subsection (1)(b) and (c)'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 5

CAUSING DANGER TO ROAD-USERS

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 3, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert

'(a) anything lawfully placed on or near a road by a highway authority;
(b) a traffic sign lawfully placed on or near a road by a person other than a highway authority;'
This amendment arises out of concern, expressed during the debate on clause 5, that the new offence did not adequately cater for traffic equipment placed by anyone other than a highway authority. I explained then that the clause as drafted already catered for equipment placed by contractors working on behalf of a highway authority, but did not go far enough.
The intention of the amendment is therefore to provide a new definition of "traffic equipment" for this purpose. It will extend the application of the new offence to interference with all traffic signs and safety equipment put up by undertakers executing street works in accordance with the requirements imposed by the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 or which will be imposed under the new roads and street works legislation. I hope that it will be helpful.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

INFORMATION AS TO IDENTITY OF DRIVER ETC.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 14, line 14, after 'corporate', insert
', or in Scotland a partnership or an unincorporated association,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 74 and 36.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 correct an omission in clause 18. Where a body corporate is charged with an offence under section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988—failing to provide information as to the identity of the driver at the time of an alleged offence—it can only benefit from the "due diligence" defence if it can show that no record was kept of drivers using the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable. The amendments will make certain that the same qualification will apply in the case of offences by Scottish partnerships and unincorporated associations.
Amendment No. 36 responds to concerns expressed in Committee. It deals with the offence of failing to provide information about the driver of a vehicle, particularly a vehicle involved in an offence detected by the use of camera technology. There is already an obligation on a registered keeper, when required by the police, to give such information as he is able about the identity of a driver who may have committed a road traffic offence. Obviously, this is particularly important for camera-detected offences, where the camera will have recorded the vehicle's registration plate but not the driver.
If these provisions are to work, there must be no built-in incentive for the registered keeper to withhold information when he may himself be the driver, so the offence of failing to provide information must be treated with the same level of seriousness as the offence about which information is sought. Companies should have the same responsibility to provide information as a private individual, and it is right that a director or other officer who has connived at failing to provide information or who is negligent should share in that responsibility. There will be a defence that a company could not ascertain who the driver of the vehicle was at a particular time, if it can be demonstrated that failure to keep a record was reasonable. I do not, therefore, believe that companies should be absolved of responsibility.
A point was raised in committee by a number of hon. Members—in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), in whose name the amendments were tabled, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). We are persuaded that it is not necessarily appropriate for the penalty to include the endorsement of penalty points on a licence where the offence is committed by a company and its officers. The connection with the driving of the particular company vehicles involved in the offence is remote, and too much would turn on whether the relevant director held a driving licence. In such circumstances, I am sure it is right to rely on a financial penalty. Hence, the amendment removes endorsement and discretionary disqualification from the penalty in these cases—and meets the point that was made in Committee.
For the sake of consistency, it also removes endorsement and discretionary disqualification in cases which may arise in Scotland where a partner in a partnership or an officer of an unincorporated association is prosecuted for an offence committed by the partnership of association.
I commend these three amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 74, in page 14, line 16 after first 'above', insert 'or subsection (11) below'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 26

DISQUALIFICATION FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 23, line 40 at end add

'or section 223A or 436A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 31

CONDITIONAL OFFER OF FIXED PENALTY

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 30, line 13 after 'Where', insert 'in England and Wales'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 76 to 87 and 97 to 101.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendment empowers the police to issue conditional offers of fixed penalty to a majority of those that they would otherwise have reported to the fiscal for committing a fixed penalty offence. The power can be used either at the roadside or, if detected by unmanned equipment, by later sending the offer by post. At present, the police have no power to issue fixed penalty notices at the roadside for traffic offences committed in moving vehicles or in those that attract the endorsement. The police have pressed to have such a power for some time, as they see it as conducive to improved road traffic enforcement.
We have had extensive consultations with interested bodies and have concluded that the enforcement of road traffic offences, such as speeding, could effectively be carried out by the police using broadly the system of conditional offer fixed penalties proposed in clause 31. If the amendment is made, the police will no longer have to make routine reports on such offences as speeding to the fiscal except in cases where a conditional offer was not taken up. There will therefore be a considerable saving of time for the police and fiscals.
I commend the amendment as a useful streamlining of present procedures with a potential contribution to policing enforcement and hence road safety in Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 76, in page 30, line 14, leave out
', or in Scotland a procurator fiscal,'.

No. 77, in page 30, line 21, leave out from 'police' to end of line 39 and insert—

'(2) Where in Scotland a procurator fiscal receives a report that—

(a) an offence specified in Schedule 3 to this Act has been committed,
(b) an offence specified in Schedule 5 to this Act has been committed,
(c) an offence referrred to in paragraph (a) or (b) above has been committed, being an offence of causing or permitting a vehicle to be used by another person in contravention of any provision made or any restriction or prohibition imposed by or under any enactment, or
(d) an offence of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of an offence referred to in this subsection has been committed.'.

No. 78, in page 30, line 41, at end insert—

'(3) Where in Scotland, a constable—

(a) on any occasion has reason to believe that a person he finds is committing or has on that occasion committed a fixed penalty offence, he may hand to that person,
(b) in any case has reason to believe that a fixed penalty offence has been committed, he or another person authorised in that respect by the chief constable may send to the alleged offender,
a notice under this section.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) above shall not apply where a fixed penalty notice has been fixed to a vehicle under section 62 of this Act.'.

No. 79, in page 31, line 48, leave out '(a)' and insert '(b)'.

No. 80, in page 32, line 14, after 'until' insert—
'(a) in England and Wales,'.

No. 81, in page 32, line 14, after 'or', insert '(b)'.

No. 82, in page 32, line 15, after 'fiscal' insert
'or (where the conditional offer was issued under section 75(3) of this Act) the chief constable'.

No. 83, in page 32, line 34, leave out from 'the' to end of line 36 and insert
'person referred to in subsection (2)(a) or (b) above'.

No. 84, in page 32, line 42, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 43 and insert
'person referred to in subsection (2)(a) or (b) above'.

No. 85, in page 33, line 8, at end insert-—
'(9) In Scotland, the Secretary of State may by regulations vary the provisions of subsection (2)(b) above.'.

No. 86, in page 33, line 18, leave out from 'the' to 'under' in line 20 and insert
'person referred to in section 76(2)(a) or (b) of this Act'.

No. 87, in page 33, line 40, leave out from 'the' to 'that' in line 42 and insert
'person referred to in section 76(2)(a) or (b) of this Act'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 34

DISQUALIFICATION WHERE VEHICLE USED FOR ASSAULT

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 36, line 5, after "convicted', insert
'by or before any court".—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 35

DISQUALIFICATION IN SCOTLAND WHERE VEHICLE USED TO COMMIT OFFENCE

Amendments made: No. 88, in page 36, line 30, at end insert 'and its counterpart'.

No. 89, in page 36, line 35, at end insert—
'(4) In relation to licences which came into force before 1st June 1990, the reference in subsection (2) above to the counterpart of a licence shall be disregarded.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 36

POWER TO INSTALL EQUIPMENT FOR DETECTION OF TRAFFIC OFFENCES

Mr. Robert Adley: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 36, line 40, at end insert—
'(2) A highway authority may, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport for time to time require specified types of public service vehicles operating in its area to be fitted with equipment detectable by said highway authority.'.
I am grateful for the opportunity to move the amendment. As one of my hon. Friends said a moment ago, events have moved rather fast and the television monitor where I was sitting packed up—it was probably totally confused by the speed at which we are proceeding.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned unmanned equipment, and that is what the amendment refers to. It is clear to everyone that the police are severely overstretched in trying to cope with London's traffic problems. It is equally clear that certain vehicles, particularly coaches—the amendment refers to public service vehicles—have so multiplied the amount of work placed on the shoulders of

the Metropolitan police that my hon. Friends who have been dealing with the Bill are right to refer to the need to utilise more unmanned equipment.
I should like the amendment to be inserted in the Bill in an attempt to use such equipment to deal with the illegal parking of, and use of unsuitable roads by, public service vehicles, particularly coaches. Since coach deregulation, the problem has become almost out of hand. The deregulation legislation, possibly inadvertently, removed from London local authorities both the right and the duty to designate coach routes. I included public service vehicles in the amendment because I wanted to differentiate between coaches and buses. London buses serve Londoners, but coaches serve commuters and tourists. It is not London's buses that cause the problem, but incoming commuter and tourist coaches.
In support of the amendment, I shall give two brief quotations. The first is a letter from the deputy assistant commissioner of the central district, Mr. Innes, who wrote to me as long ago as 15 January 1987. That is a sign of how long some of us have been trying to raise such problems. He said:
You will be aware that in the Central Area problems with coaches are quite horrendous. We have to balance the proper desires of the tourist boards to attract visitors to London alongside the vastly increased use of coaches for commuting purposes, all in streets designed for horses and carts.
It is wrong for the House to pass legislation that puts huge burdens, with which they are virtually unable to cope, on the Metropolitan police.
More recently, on 14 February 1989, Mr. Brand, the chief inspector of operations for the Metropolitan police at Kensington police station, wrote about the problem of coaches parking on roads where they had no right to be. The anomaly has arisen that, under the Transport Act 1985, coaches that travel more than 15 miles appear to be exempt from many of the existing parking and stopping regulations. Mr. Brand said:
Many of the tours do not require licensing under the 1985 Transport Act as these travel further than 15 miles. However, the regulations permit coaches to wait in any restricted street for as long as necessary to pick up and set down passengers or load and unload baggage.
We know perfectly well what goes on with the commuter coaches: they clog up the main arterial roads in the rush hour and often drive around for hours on end trying to kill time in order to find themselves at the right place at the right time. That often means that they park illegally while waiting to pick up people to take them home in the rush hour on over-congested roads.
In the absence of an unlimited number of policemen to watch virtually every coach operator in London, we shall have to turn to unmanned equipment. That equipment could also be used to deal with the increasingly serious problem of pollution caused by coaches, particularly in parts of the capital such as the area around Victoria coach station. I presume that it is possible to devise equipment that can register given levels of pollution from diesel fumes and, if necessary, set off an alarm.
The purpose of my amendment is to force coach firms to fit such equipment in their vehicles so that, when they park in and use roads that are not designed for them, and cause unnecessary pollution, as they do at present, the equipment will be activated. That would make the job of the police a great deal simpler.
I hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to give a fair wind to my proposal.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). I was caught unawares by the rapid progress of this piece of transport legislation. This is an opportunity to address the problem that coaches pose to those of us who live and work in London, and to many people who come to London on public transport arid end up touring London on foot.
Many of the major roads, and some of the smaller ones, are substantially blocked for long periods by coaches attempting to park, having off-loaded their passengers or, as the hon. Member for Christchurch suggested, driving around for no particular purpose—hardly an environmentally friendly activity. We must find ways to control that form of activity.
It has always struck me that the real red routes in London should be either the bus routes or the tube routes. They should be kept free for people to move quickly along them. The underground system should be designated a priority route and allowed to move speedily. The recent adverts on the backs of buses have been effective in getting the message across to those driving behind them. They call for people not to block the arteries of London by parking in bus lanes. If bus lanes and the underground system were red routes, we should have a public transport system and mobility around the capital that we do not currently have.
9.15 pm
I do not know whether the technicalities of the amendment are easily achievable, but I am sure that where there's a will, there's a way. There must be a mechanical way of identifying where vehicles are. In the days of the Greater London council, heavy goods vehicles were required to have a permit to come into central London. That was one way of designating the limited number of vehicles which pass a particular test and of monitoring it. It would be a good idea—and probably an inevitable one—to control the number of vehicles coming into London. If we do not do that sooner, we shall do it later. One category of vehicle which needs to be controlled is that of coaches, but there are others not covered by the amendment. They are not public service vehicles, but goods vehicles. They too will need to be controlled, and various ideas about how to do that are now gaining support.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the idea that we need to tackle the growing congestion caused by coaches in London. The most modern technology could be deployed to do that. I am aware that the Government increasingly propose the use of modern technology for monitoring which types of vehicles take which routes and for enabling people to identify congestion on the roads ahead so that they can make alternative arrangements. If people are increasingly able to monitor which routes are free flowing and which are blocked, it must be possible to do something similar to what is proposed in the amendment. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the general idea, if not to the specific proposal.

Mr. Chope: I shall address my remarks specifically to the amendment. I invite the House to reject it, although I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) will withdraw it, because it is unnecessary.
The highway authorities already have sufficient powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to restrict or prohibit the movement of vehicles on their roads, including restricting the use of public service vehicles.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and I met the last Secretary of State for Transport but two, more than three years ago to discuss these problems? He tended to say the same thing as the Minister. Westminster council has so far taken three years—it is not the councils fault—to draft the necessary orders and to obtain the Department's approval. The Minister was quick to give Westminster council the approval, but it has involved the local authority in a monumental amount of work and will involve it and its community charge payers in considerable expense. Theoretically, the Minister may be right in theoretical terms, but so far as I am aware, none of the London boroughs regards the matter as remotely as easy as he is trying to make out.

Mr. Chope: I am not underestimating the difficulties that local authorities may have. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred to the expense to Westminster city council. Despite that expense, it has been able to set a reduced community charge for the coming year, and it must be congratulated on that. I understand that considerable effort is being made to try to achieve a voluntary agreement between coach operators and the local authorities. I am sure that my earlier announcement about extending the permitted parking powers and the parking regime so that local authorities have a greater say in the use of the roads for which they have responsibility—this will be relevant to the parking of coaches as well as to the use of coaches on the roads—will help to deal with the problem. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would probably prefer that there were no coaches in London, but they form about 2 per cent. of the traffic in London and provide a valuable service.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a point about bus lanes. The red routes will facilitate the freer movement of traffic. We hope that one of the main responsibilities of the traffic director will be to facilitate the speedier movement of buses. That has been the early experience in the Archway pilot scheme.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will accept that powers already exist. I have heard what he has said about the difficulties and technicalities of making the necessary regulations, but it has always been the policy of the Government and of the more enlightened local authorities that where there's a will, there's a way.

Mr. Adley: It would be unfair to detain the House longer on the amendment. It took me three years to persuade one of my hon. Friend the Minister's predecessors to invite the Chancellor to raise the road fund licence fee for coaches. I am sure that it will take a long time to overcome the damage done by coach deregulation. As Mr. David Weekes, chairman of the Westminster planning committee, said:
Deregulation had left the Traffic Commissioners with greatly reduced powers.
The problem is greater than my hon. Friend the Minister is willing to admit, and sooner or later we shall have to deal


with it. I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not see fit to accept what I thought was a fairly straightforward enabling amendment which I shall, of course, withdraw, although sooner or later we shall have to return to this matter.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41

DESIGNATION OF PRIORITY ROUTES

Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 38, line 9, leave out 'traffic' and insert 'people and goods'.
Clause 41 sets out the overriding objective for priority routes, or red routes as they are unpopularly called. The overriding objective is
improving the movement of traffic.
Although the objective for the priority route network are set out later in the Bill—primarily in clause 42—any conflict or weighting needed between objectives will have to be set in the context of the overriding aim.
Several amendments were tabled in Committee to attempt to broaden the overriding aim. Many of the roads proposed as red routes can reasonably be said to be concerned solely with traffic movement and they include the motorways and roads such as the A3 Kingston bypass. However, far more of the roads must serve a wide variety of purposes. The A23 in Brixton, for example, runs through what is primarily a shopping centre. The A203 South Lambeth road is mainly a residential road. The A304 Fulham road is a mixture of housing and local shops and in Putney, it becomes the local high street. Those roads are not primarily main arteries for traffic, and it is wrong to have that as an overriding aim.
The amendment seeks to replace the word "traffic" with the words "people and goods". That is not a meaningless difference. To the lay person, "traffic" is synonymous with vehicles. We should not be concerned with aiding the movement of vehicles per se, because vehicles are only a means to an end. The objective of the movement of traffic is more important and it is to get people and goods to their destination.
The distinction is becoming clear to users of the red route pilot scheme and can be seen clearly by organisations such as the Freight Transport Association. The FTA originally had some reservations about red routes, but it quickly became a firm supporter as the allure of less congestion was waved in front of it. That was obviously quite important for its members who drive their lorries around the capital. However, after experience of the pilot scheme, the FTA has now called on the Minister for a radical review.
Great difficulties have been encountered in delivering and picking up goods from premises on red routes. For example, a bread lorry was towed away while the driver was telling the baker that he would not be able to make any deliveries. The FTA now opposes the red routes because it realises that a few seconds off driving time is vastly outweighed by the extra costs to businesses that front on to red routes.
Businesses are reporting big problems up and down the pilot red route. The Islington chamber of commerce has

reported that, on average, turnover in shops on the red route pilot scheme is down by 30 per cent. in comparison with the same period last year. In some cases there was a decline of more than 50 per cent.

Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Ruddock: No, I do not have time.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is no time limit.

Ms. Ruddock: I am aware of that, but some of the hon. Lady's colleagues took up a vast amount of time discussing earlier amendments, and we are anxious to proceed.
The businesses to which I have referred are mainly small businesses which Conservative Members support, but they cannot continue to survive in the climate that I have described. The Minister's response to the concern has been to say that the businesses should not have been there in the first place and that they should not have started up in areas that already have parking restrictions. That comment is, in part, misleading. Most of the parking restrictions have not changed. We believe that parking restrictions should be enforced. In earlier amendments we tried to have parking restrictions enforced. We criticised the lack of enforcement of parking restrictions.

Mr. Allason: The hon. Lady has just contradicted herself.

Ms. Ruddock: Not at all. We have said that parking restrictions should be enforced and we moved amendments to that effect.

Mr. Allason: Except for bakers' lorries.

Ms. Ruddock: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me for a moment, he will understand my point.
The decline of 15 per cent. over the past five years in the number of traffic wardens has meant that parking restrictions are not enforced effectively. If businesses have continued to accept that parking restrictions are not enforced, they cannot be blamed for that. They have traded according to the local climate. However, I am not even defending that—

Mr. Allason: The hon. Lady must give way now. I will be very brief.

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman may be brief, but he must wait until I have finished my argument.
I was simply saying that businesses operate in that climate. The important point is that the problem stems not just from parking restrictions that are being enforced now for the first time on the pilot red route, but from the new waiting restrictions. The problem arises not so much for customer parking as for delivery lorries making deliveries. Businesses are complaining about the loading restrictions that have been introduced with the pilot red route. Those restrictions are proving to be damaging to local businesses.
Even if that were not the case, the Minister's approach would cause large areas of blight in London. If shops and businesses are now deemed to be in the wrong places and must therefore go, it will be difficult to find other uses for those premises along roads like the pilot red route. The Secretary of State will become responsible for blight, but he will not be prepared to take action to remedy it.

Mr. Bowis: Does not the hon. Lady accept that, before a red route is designated—at the moment, we are dealing only with a trial scheme—there is an enormous amount of consultation, including consultation with the local authority? Nothing in the Bill requires red routes to ban parking at any specific time. That can be geared to the needs of a particular road. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man in local government or of the director of traffic to work out for each route a sensible scheme that meets the needs of deliveries and of the people living, working and shopping in the area.

Ms. Ruddock: There is much logic in what the hon. Gentleman says. It should be possible to work out a regime that is sensible and meets the obvious needs of people and goods, which is exactly what we are suggesting should be the priority and main consideration. That is the purpose of the amendment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will support it. [Interruption.] I remind the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that the Bill does not contain a mechanism that provides for public consultation. Our next amendment, amendment No. 13, which I shall also move, introduces consultation, because that is signally lacking in the Bill as drafted.
If there had been consultation that was as rigorous and considerate as the hon. Gentleman would wish, the problems that I am now outlining would not be occurring. Adequate consultation would surely have ensured that businesses would not now be encountering the immense difficulties that they are currently reporting to the chambers of commerce and to my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and. for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
9.30 pm
The amendment emphasises the needs of people and goods. It will mean that the overriding objective of the red routes is not simply the movement of vehicles, but the movement of people and goods to their destinations, which is what we suggest should be the primary aim of transport.
Another function of the amendment is that it will allow priority to be given to the efficient users of road space—the buses. Various hon. Members set out their view in Committee, which was that it is not possible to speed buses without similarly speeding cars, and vice versa, and that any move to speed cars will automatically help buses. However, that analysis is not accurate. Large-scale bus priority measures will speed buses, but will not affect car journey speeds significantly. It is a fallacy to suggest, as some Conservative Members have suggested, that bus lanes slow down other traffic. That is not the case, as long as they are properly designed.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has not yet mentioned—perhaps she is about to do so—that the movement of people, whether by bus or by car, might be enhanced by bus lanes, which would increase the time spent by people travelling in private cars, but there will be a net gain for everyone, with a better flow of people. That shows the inept and incorrect criteria that the Government are adopting in this part of the Bill.

Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend's points are well made. Large-scale bus priority measures would significantly increase the average speed at which people can move

without significantly changing the average speeds of all vehicles. That is because buses are far more efficient users of road space than cars.
Furthermore, no-car lanes and other measures that aid lorries could speed the movement of freight without significantly increasing the volume of traffic or the number of cars, thus avoiding the environmental problems that that could create.
The distinction between traffic on the one hand and people and goods on the other is significant. The use of the latter definition would remove the overwhelming priority that has been given to passing vehicles and would allow a proper balance to be struck between access to red-route frontages and movement along those routes.
In the light of the experience of the pilot red routes, I hope that the Minister will concede that all is not well and that it is important to have much more regard than the Government have given in the pilot project to the movement of people and goods rather than stressing the simple speed at which vehicles can move past the homes in which people live and the shops in which they wish to conduct their business.

Mr. Adley: I am not unsympathetic to what the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has said. I am sorry if that upsets some of my hon. Friends but I am bound to say——

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend has already been reselected.

Mr. Adley: If I managed to vote against the poll tax without it causing me any problems, it will not be a problem if I agree with the hon. Lady. Having just returned from Ribble Valley, I am pleased to put that on the record.
The Government's phase of believing that the market is the only necessary discipline to deal with the problem of London's traffic should be consigned to the dustbin at the earliest opportunity. Unrestricted competition, certainly between coach companies, is one of the most serious problems that we face in London, although not the only one. Small numbers of people are brought into London by coach but the amount of congestion and pollution which the coaches create is out of all proportion. Therefore, the hon. Lady's amendment to replace the word "traffic" with the words "people and goods" is perfectly fair.
Westminster city council suggested in a recent document:

"The Government should recognise that coach terminal provision in London is a strategic planning matter.
The Government should support a dispersed terminal strategy.
The Government should recognise also that coach parking in Central London is a strategic national matter and consider making it eligible for grant support."
My hon. Friend the Minister properly praises Westminster city council for its efficiency, but I assure him that the people responsible for dealing with the day-to-day problems of London traffic in that local authority will tell him that they are unhappy with the present situation.
The number of coaches towed away by the Metropolitan police rises inexorably. Indeed, when my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) was Minister for Public Transport, he produced some figures with which I shall not weary the House, which showed that the number of coaches towed away by the Metropolitan police was rising month by month. Unless


we deal with the problems of priority routes properly, we shall continue to place an intolerable burden on the Metropolitan police. I am sure that none of us in the House would wish to do that.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the Sessional Order was moved at the beginning of this Session, I raised the problem of access to this building caused by the illegal parking of coaches in and around Parliament square. Mr. Cockram, the clerk to the traffic commissioners, has been in correspondence with an officer of the House, Mr. Brown, from the Select Committee on House of Commons Services. On 7 June last year, he said:
On the evidence of recent checks, they"—
that is a company called London Cityrama—
appear to have broken one of those conditions and have now been warned about this. The breaches are not however such as to justify the Commissioner taking action to revoke the licence and nor does the legislation give him power to require them to use a different bus stop from that presently authorised.
So clearly there is inadequate legislation on the statute book to deal with the problem.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will not mind if I quote correspondence from National Express, which is one of the worst offenders on trunk routes and other roads in London. I have a series of letters from various members of its staff who admit that some of the company's drivers have erred and strayed from their way like lost sheep, or not, as the case may be.
One letter of 2 November 1988 says:
I am concerned to note that the vehicle's engine was running unnecessarily and I will ensure that the matter is brought to the attention of the owning company".
More recently, Mr. J. C. Myers, the managing director, wrote on 29 October last year:
I have arranged for further notification to be sent to all of our operating companies reminding them of the restrictions defined by Westminster City Council.
A letter of 5 December 1990 said:
I regret this further intrusion and your identification of vehicle registration numbers is helpful in sorting out offenders … I would seek to reassure you that we are taking action to stamp out this practice.
Two months later—indeed, only this morning—I received
a letter which said:
As you are aware, we have issued notices to all companies operating on the National Express network and your action in pinpointing specific times and registration numbers does at least enable us to trace individuals and arrange for the staff concerned to be disciplined".
They write letters, but nothing ever happens. We need to stiffen the legislation in the way in which the amendment proposes.
We need much greater use by my hon. Friend's Department of exhortation with the local authorities to install road humps—not on red routes—which will be yet another opportunity to slow down traffic and prevent unsuitable traffic from using some of the routes. The changes in the law which we have produced in the last few years have aggravated and in some cases created the problems of which we speak. The Bill deals with the overall problem of traffic; it seems to me that one class of offender—coaches—is still allowed to escape the rigours of the rules.

Mr. Chris Smith: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). The red route proposals which the

Government make in the Bill and which they are already implementing in my constituency are a classic example of putting the needs of the movement of traffic of and for itself before the needs of people and services. It is a case of the interests of commuters being put above the interests of local people, local traders and the local community.
The red route pilot scheme runs along Holloway road and Upper street, through my constituency. The Minister will know from my correspondence with him, and from the meeting that I had with his predecessor, together with the Upper street business association, of my fierce opposition to the idea and the content of the red route scheme. Its effect on local businesses has been severe. Its effect on side street parking for local residents has been adverse. Effectively, it has divided the community in two. It has the overall effect of drawing traffic into the area, whereas we should be attempting to reduce the volume of traffic passing through inner-city areas.
It is already having a discernible effect on local businesses and shops. Only this morning, I received a copy of a letter which the proprietor of a local shop, Aria, has sent to the borough council. I shall quote from the letter, because it puts the case succinctly:
The red routes have been in operation now for some weeks and from the point of view of our business, the red route has proved a disaster. Whilst traffic speeds may have increased along Upper street this has been at a cost to the environment and in the long term the shops and businesses along it.… My area of greatest concern however is the effect on Saturdays when a greater number of people wish to visit the shop by car and yet restrictions apply as if it were a normal weekday. Levels of commuters and goods traffic are considerably less than during the week and there appears to be no sound basis for continuing with the red route restrictions in Upper street.
That is a clear statement of the problems for just one of many businesses which are adversely affected along the line of the red route.
I have a number of specific questions which I hope the Minister can answer. First, when will the review that he has promised of the operation of the pilot red route scheme be carried out? Secondly, will that review look not so much at the flow of traffic and the impact of the red route on the flow of traffic as at the impact on the local people and the local businesses? Thirdly, will there be any amendment to the operation of the red routes so that they operate purely at rush hours and not throughout the day until a late hour? Fourthly, will the red route be removed entirely, as it should be, on Saturdays? Fifthly, will there be provision for tidal operation of the red route rather than operation on both sides of the road throughout the day?
Sixthly, what has been the diversion of police resources to police the operation of the red route? Are they there to protect the interests of passing traffic or to patrol the streets and protect the interests, property and lives of my constituents? It seems that at present they are devoting undue attention to the needs of the red route.
Seventhly, will the Minister think again about the whole crazy idea of red routes? It is about time he did, and for once put the needs, views and concerns of people first. We in Islington do not want this red route imposed on us.

Mr. Allason: I am in favour of red routes, and I urge the House to reject the amendment. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) is trying to have it both ways, because this is clearly a matter of priority. It is concerned with the movement of vehicles, and it would be


sheer ideological nit-picking to substitute the words of the amendment, for this is a matter of getting buses moving. If the hon. Lady also wants to prevent lorries from stopping and unloading, she is advocating two contradictory plans.
The red route at Archway has been a great success. I understand that the traffic flow has increased by 30 per cent. I know that I speak for many other residents of the Fulham road, the A304, which is scheduled to become a red route, when I say that delivery lorries parking inconsiderately clog the flow of traffic. Such vehicles could easily move into side streets if they wish to convey a message that will take perhaps only 30 seconds to convey—for example, to say that there will be no further deliveries.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) has a proper point to make about the implications for delivery and goods vehicles of changing the traffic flow, and it is right that we should consider that aspect.
The first principle of any traffic planning is that, if one creates a fast throughway for traffic, one draws more traffic to it, and the last thing London needs is more traffic. Traffic speeds in central London have slowed simply because there is far too much traffic for the capacity of London's roads. The more we investigate the possibilities of red routes, try pilot schemes and implement red route schemes more widely, the more we shall attract traffic down those arterial roads into central London and thereby congest the capital city.
I view with some apprehension any judgement by the Department of Transport that the Islington/Archway road red route is a success, because I have no doubt that the New Kent road and the Old Kent road, which run through the middle of my constituency, will be chosen because they are major trunk roads from London to Dover. They will obviously be considered as candidates for red routing.
If it were only a matter of containing the current amount of traffic and allowing that to pass in a less impeded way, that would be fine, but that is not the implication. Shoppers and pedestrians wishing to cross red routes find that they are more dangerous roads to cross and walk along. For those who live alongside those roads, there is more disruption and environmental disadvantage, with traffic pounding ever faster and in greater volumes along their frontages. That in all probability reduces the value of their properties even more, remembering that many people would not have chosen properties in the Archway road as homes even in the old days.

Mr. Bowis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about not attracting more traffic into London. Does he accept that some of the traffic that comes on the faster flowing red routes has hitherto been rat running down residential streets, and that the interests of people living in those rat runs should also be taken into account?

Mr. Hughes: That is true, but the way to deal with that is to use traffic calming and other measures in side streets to stop the rat running and to make sure that we reduce the number of goods and private vehicles using the roads, thereby solving two problems. The problem of rat runs is solved, and that simultaneously reduces traffic coming into London. Such traffic ends up in the middle of the city and has to find somewhere to park or an escape route.
The GLC promulgated the good idea of encouraging vehicles to go round London rather than through it. The red routes will encourage drivers to come into the middle of London. As I said before, the red routes in London should be for underground trains and for buses.

Mr. Corbyn: The red route that we are discussing starts in Haringey and runs through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is universally unpopular. In an answer today, the Minister told me that he had had 100 letters on the red route. Pressure of work or time, or an inability to count up to 100, prevented him from telling me how many of the letters were in favour and how many were against the red route.
I and my constituents object to red routes, because of the philosophy and principle behind them. Two years ago, the Government produced proposals for the east London assessment study, which was designed to create motorway-style roads into central London. The proposals were strongly opposed by people in my borough and neighbouring boroughs, and were subsequently withdrawn by the Government. It is interesting to note that the proposed red route follows roughly the line proposed for the major route.
We suspect that the red route's purpose is not to improve the safety or flow of traffic or the safety of pedestrians, but to bring more traffic on a fast route into central London, in this case to the City and docklands. Consultation on the system has been minimal. There was no consultation with the people of Islington about the principle of having a red route through their borough. We were consulted on the details of it being brought in. It is strongly opposed by people who see difficulty in crossing roads because of speeding cars, by people who are disturbed by increasing noise on the road and by those who suffer from disabilities and who are told that they can stop only in designated parking spaces, even though those spaces may not be outside the shops which people want to use.
At the start of the red route, there were farcical attempts by the police to move a post office van out of the way while the postman was emptying a letter box. He was told to remove his van and in future not to empty a letter box on the red route. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, there was an attempt to move a milk float. There have been other such incidents.
Many of the shops and businesses on the red route have no rear access. They are old buildings, and some of them have a mews access. Deliveries and collections have to be to the front door of the shops. That is a fact of life, whether or not it is convenient to the red route. A furniture shop on the route has had a 30 per cent. drop in takings simply because it cannot take deliveries during working hours when the furniture is brought into London from the manufacturer. In one case, a lorry came from north Wales and had to be sent back because it could not deliver.
People buying furniture from a shop on the route cannot take it away, because they cannot park close enough. The only alternative is to walk across the Holloway road carrying a double bed or a settee, and that presents more danger than a lorry parking outside a shop. The route has had a detrimental effect on the lives of people in the borough.
Hon. Members who do not represent inner-London constituencies should be told, if they do not already know, that, about halfway through the Committee proceedings on the Bill, a map produced by the Department of Transport showed a plethora of red routes to be introduced all over London. That was to be done by an unelected, unaccountable, appointed traffic commissioner with powers over local authorities to do as he or she wished. In future, traffic management will be a form of dictatorship.
Our objection to the red route is not just the increase in traffic but the philosophy of increasing the volume and speed of traffic while in ignorance of the needs of pedestrians, people with disabilities, people who wish to shop in the area and those who wish to deliver to or collect from shops.
There are already signs of a significant drop in the takings of all the small businesses along the red route. That will lead to their closure. Around the Nag's Head, at the junction of the Seven Sisters road and Holloway road, Jones Brothers, once a major department store in the area, has closed, as have other shops. Dead shopping areas are appearing all along the route.
The Minister must understand that people who live in inner-city areas usually have a lower level of car ownership than those elsewhere. Less than half the households in my borough have access to a car, never mind the individual use of a car. The needs of pedestrians and public transport are more important to them than increasing the number of commuter motorists, often in taxpayer-subsidised cars, tearing in and out of London.
The solution to London's traffic problems does not lie with traffic management schemes such as the red routes and all that goes with them; it lies with the philosophy that increases accessibility to public transport and reduces its cost. That is the way forward for the city, not by bringing more traffic into an already overcrowded and polluted central area of our city.

Mr. Chope: This debate is largely about semantics. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members look at the terms of the amendment to which they have been speaking, they will see that it seeks to substitute a new word for the word "traffic". People who are travelling and freight that is being moved are important considerations, but people and goods are moved by vehicles, and vehicles constitute one part of the dictionary definition of traffic. The other part of the dictionary definition is people.
The Bill and the red routes are all about freeing the movement of traffic to cut down waste and pollution and to improve safety. Those are desirable objectives. The essence of the scheme is primarily to improve the movement of traffic, and that is what needs to appear on the face of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the movement of goods and people can be achieved by various modes, including shoe leather and crossing the road? In the Minister's book, movement by traffic seems to mean movement by motor vehicle. It is not a semantic difference—it is a big and fundamental difference.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman will probably accept that the movement of people by bus and the movement of goods by lorry are important considerations. The

movement of people who service the community in London by van is also important. All those are difficult considerations to balance, but we think that, by concentrating the through traffic in London on the main routes, we shall be able to relieve the pressure on the other routes. The red route scheme is gaining increasing popular acceptance.
When London Weekend Television wished to do a hatchet job on the Government's red route proposal, it sent a crew up the red route in the morning and back again in the afternoon, speaking to many people on the route, including motorists and others. But at the end of the day, when the crew came to interview me, it had to accept—contrary to what the producer had hoped—that the red route was a pronounced success. But then—surprise, surprise—LWT did not feel it necessary to show that programme.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept the proposition that there will be more traffic on that red route?

Mr. Chope: I accept that the creation of a red route will make it easier for traffic to move away from the other routes and on to the main route. That is the essence of the scheme. We hope that the amount of traffic in London will not increase significantly, but it is important that we should make the best use of London's main roads, because it is clear that the people of London do not wish to have a lot of new purpose-built roads imposed upon them.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the creation of a red route will increase the amount of traffic passing along that route, wherever it comes from?

Mr. Chope: Yes, if it is successful, it probably will. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) looks dissatisfied with that, but surely it would show that the red route was a success.
Many comments have been made about the effects on businesses. I am sure that the hon. Member for Islington, North will have noted that it is not merely businesses in Islington which did not have an especially good January.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Road Traffic Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Chope: A firm in Knightsbridge has not been doing especially well on the retail side recently, but it has not blamed its lack of business on a red route.
We shall have to await the results of the monitoring being carried out by the transport and road research laboratory. As I have already said, I am willing to meet people from the business community.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand that the report is being prepared. To what extent will it look into the business and social effects of the route on shops and so forth alongside it? If the report deals solely with traffic movement, it will not answer many of our objections to the route.

Mr. Chope: As I understand it, the transport and road research laboratory is making a comparison with what is happening in Streatham, where there is no red route, so it


will be able to compare effects on businesses and shops there in the same period with the effects of the red route in Islington.
There has been a great deal of disinformation and exaggeration about the impact of the red route. Many of the businesses complaining about it were already in unsatisfactory positions. Three of the businesses which have complained are located next to bus stops, on zigzags next to traffic signals—as they were before the red route was introduced. Ten other businesses which have complained about the new red route are complaining about enforcement of regulations which applied before. There is certainly more provision for proper loading and unloading facilities on the pilot red route than existed before. That will be helpful to the community in Islington, especially when work on side roads has been completed.
I do not think that I shall be able to persuade the hon. Member for Islington, North that red routes are the right answer, as he argued against them articulately and emotionally in Committee, but I am sure that people in London will come to appreciate the initiatives that the Government have taken by introducing red routes.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 219.

Division No. 82]
[10.03 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Flynn, Paul


Allen, Graham
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beckett, Margaret
Gordon, Mildred


Bell, Stuart
Graham, Thomas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Benton, Joseph
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grocott, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Boyes, Roland
Hinchliffe, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kirkwood, Archy


Cartwright, John
Lamond, James


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leighton, Ron


Clay, Bob
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Livsey, Richard


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Cummings, John
McAllion, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAvoy, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
McCartney, Ian


Darling, Alistair
Macdonald, Calum A.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McFall, John


Dixon, Don
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Doran, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Duffy, A. E. P.
McMaster, Gordon


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John


Eadie, Alexander
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fearn, Ronald
Maxton, John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun





Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Sheerman, Barry


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Short, Clare


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Mullin, Chris
Spearing, Nigel


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Brien, William
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Hara, Edward
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dennis


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Vaz, Keith


Prescott, John
Wallace, James


Primarolo, Dawn
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Redmond, Martin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rooney, Terence



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. Jack Thompson.


Salmond, Alex





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arbuthnot, James
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dunn, Bob


Atkins, Robert
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fallon, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Tony


Beggs, Roy
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bellingham, Henry
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Benyon, W.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Franks, Cecil


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boswell, Tim
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Brazier, Julian
Gregory, Conal


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grist, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hague, William


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butler, Chris
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Chope, Christopher
Hind, Kenneth


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irvine, Michael






Irving, Sir Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Jackson, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Janman, Tim
Rathbone, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Kilfedder, James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shersby, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maclean, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malins, Humfrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mans, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thorne, Neil


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Malcolm


Miller, Sir Hal
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moate, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Sir Charles
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Walden, George


Moss, Malcolm
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Waller, Gary


Needham, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Winterton, Nicholas


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Page, Richard



Paice, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Patnick, Irvine
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Patten, Rt Hon John
Mr. David Davis.


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 38, line 15, after 'Commissioners', insert
'(bb) such organisations of road users as he thinks appropriate;'.
I shall be very brief. This amendment was tabled by Front-Bench Labour Members, and I have supported them. It may be that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and one or two of his colleagues will add a word or two in support of my remarks.
The amendment concerns the process by which red routes are established. The Bill, as drafted, includes a provision for consultation with three different agencies

—the relevant local authority, the relevant commissioner or commissioners, and London regional transport. The amendment would result in the inclusion of such organisations of road users as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. This is geared intentionally to ensure that all those other people who would be affected by the creation of red routes were consulted. The obvious categories include pedestrians, who are likely to be among the most severely affected categories, and users of public transport.
It seems to me that this is an appropriate and uncontroversial amendment. Ministers always have reasons for opposing amendments that are not of their own making. Those reasons can be either technical or substantive. I believe that there is no fundamental, profound or justifiable reason for resisting this amendment, and I hope that the Minister, having won the last skirmish, will be generous enough to admit that this is a good idea.

Ms. Ruddock: Throughout the Committee stage, Members on both sides expressed concern about the very limited consultation requirements that the Bill lays down. At no point in the procedure for the definition of priority routes or for the preparation of objectives, the network plan or local plans, is there any requirement for the public to be consulted in any way. At best, this principle is accepted only in the case of local plans drawn up by the local authorities, which would expect to consult local businesses and residents in any case. So far as the other cases are concerned, the Minister made it clear in Committee that he expects local authorities to consult local residents and businesses. That is hardly adequate. These are Government schemes, not borough schemes, and boroughs are hardly in a position to explain the details of such proposals, or the thinking behind them, when questions arise—as they surely will.
In the case of the London assessment studies, the Secretary of State accepted this point and agreed that civil servants should present the consultants' proposals to public meetings, as only then could the civil servants be in a position to explain them properly. Even though the civil servants objected initially, this procedure was followed, and most would agree that, although consultation was in many ways inadequate, it was a considerable advance on any form of consultation previously offered by the Department of Transport.
Not only has the Minister refused to accept that point in this case, but he refused in Committee to accept that boroughs should accept the costs of this consultation. He also said that, generally, there would be a period of two months for consultation. After taking into account the time taken to dispatch information, collate responses, write reports and send those reports to Committee members, two months, in terms of local authority practice, would allow the public a maximum of about one week to respond, and in, many cases, no time at all.
Given the fact that these proposals will dramatically affect many people's lives and activities, this is hardly adequate. The Minister may expect the boroughs to consult their residents. As I have said, we believe that such consultation would be totally inadequate, but there are also a number of road users' organisations that cannot be consulted in that way.

Mr. Bowis: Up to now, the hon. Lady has been talking about consulting the public. This amendment refers not to


the public but to organisations of road users. One is aware of organisations such as associations of road hauliers and chambers of commerce, but what about the organisations that represent our constituents who drive on these roads?

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. We discussed at length, in the previous amendment, the fact that it is not just the movement of vehicles or the people who are moving through London that worries us, but all the people in the neighbourhoods, many of whom my hon. Friends represent in the case of the pilot scheme.
I was about to say that the boroughs are not responsible for the views of the RAC, the Freight Transport Association, the Pedestrians Association or the London Cycling Campaign. Many of those organisations, particularly the latter two, have many members in our constituencies. Indeed, they consist of no one other than ordinary members of our constituencies, who choose a variety of modes of transport and whose views must be properly represented.

Mr. Bowis: That will take place in the consultation. But we also need to hear from Londoners who have to drive.

Ms. Ruddock: If Government policies were different, with proper support for public transport, many of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers would not need to travel on the roads but would have alternative modes of transport. It would then be possible for organisations of passengers who travel by public transport to be represented.

Mr. Bowis: That is different.

Ms. Ruddock: Indeed, it is different. But if the hon. Gentleman refers simply to those many individual car owners who travel through areas of London but have no reason for being in a neighbourhood, for example for shopping, the only organisations that represent them are those such as the RAC, to which I have already referred.

Mr. Bowis: I am not referring to people who do not live in the area. If one is to have consultations with organisations, one must consult fairly, across the board, with organisations covering all road users. One specific group of users comprises people who live in London but who use their vehicles—because they have to, because they choose to or because public transport is not available. How would the amendment relate to them?

Ms. Ruddock: The amendment can deal only with organisations that exist. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, as I suggested earlier, that the RAC could be deemed to represent individual car users. Nowadays, organisations such as the RAC and the AA are not simply rescue services but have developed a broad tranche he of transport policies, and they represent car users. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind any other representative organisations, we shall be happy to hear from him. If he says that there are no organisations in existence, his suggestion is impossible. We seek to make available consultation to legitimate organisations that obviously represent a variety of forms of road users.
I repeat that there are organisations that should be consulted. The Bill gives the members of those organisations no right to be consulted whatsoever. That is the purpose of this minimal though important amendment. It would not be responsible of the Minister to put the responsibility for such consultation on to the

boroughs, especially with the short time scales that he is proposing and without any extra finance. It is hardly sensible to expect the boroughs to consult more widely on proposals which are not theirs. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take this modest proposal seriously and accept it.

Mr. Spearing: As I said on Second Reading, I have a particular reason for speaking on this amendment about consultation. I wish to show that, with better consultation, some of the misconceptions and difficulties of the scheme will be revealed. It is possible that I am the only person—certainly the only person on the Floor, although perhaps not in parts of the Chamber that we cannot name—who has been involved in implementing such a scheme.
It is now 25 years since the former Greater London council introduced clearways in London. Those clearways were designed to do almost exactly what the Minister is attempting to do with the red routes. A clear and comprehensive plan was developed across the river—where it should be—by a strategic, policy-making organisation for London. It relieved the House of matters with which it should not concern itself at this time of night, or any other time.
The plan involved a considerable amount of consultation. I remember going to many boroughs. Four sub-committees were dealing with the issue, and we spent hours round the tables in town halls trying to balance the need of the increasing movement of traffic against the needs of frontages along unique pieces of highway.
The Minister will know some of the high roads in the London borough of Wandsworth. Many of the potential red routes are along roads that existed as country lanes before London became a built-up area—for example, Streatham high road, East hill, Wandsworth, and Wandsworth high street. There are many roads in the Clapham and Battersea district with which he will be familiar from his local government days, which were built up in Edwardian times. Some of those roads were tram routes, and were thoroughfares long before the motor car or lorry became common.
A thoroughfare is not the same thing as a road; it is a multi-purpose phenomenon. It is true that it always has a road carriageway in the middle. Originally, horses and carts, trams and cycles went down the carriageway, but a thoroughfare is much more than that. It includes the pavements, the businesses, the houses, as well as the cross-routes that join the main carriageway, typical of Edwardian and Victorian London.
Further out of London there are roads that were built, specifically with traffic in mind, in the 1930s. Some of those roads were modified—for example, the Kingston bypass and parts of the A13. Some new arterial roads have been built specifically for traffic.
I suspect that the roads that the Minister has in mind and those on which he will be making designation orders are urban thoroughfares of the sort that I have described, which, for reasons we all understand, are the inner thoroughfares leading to outer arterial roads. The Minister wants the traffic-carrying capacity of those thoroughfares to impinge on the local community.
The Bill states that the Minister should take note of the unique circumstances of each scheme and consult on them, as the Greater London council did on clearways. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the clearways scheme cannot be extended as a concept, beefed up or modified, because


it was the original scheme. It was not perfect, but it improved the flow of traffic without impinging too much on the interests of local people.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—there are many such roads in Battersea—asked which organisation should be consulted. I have no doubt that both he and the Minister are often approached by old-age pensioners' associations, which are sensitive to issues such as traffic lights and zebra crossings, which present desirable opportunities for people to cross roads. If the Minister takes a census—I do not know whether the transport and road research laboratory is conducting one—he may find that the number of people walking up and down the road or wanting to cross it on foot is larger than the number of vehicles using it.
Thoroughfares provide just as important a function for pedestrians as vehicles, sometimes more. There are often many more pedestrians walking up the sides of London roads than travelling on them. Victoria street might be a good example. One must take account of the fact that the flow of traffic is often lower than one might think. What about pensioners' organisations? All of us who use roads know that traffic lights must be phased. A judgment must be made at every intersection about the balance of traffic, including cross-traffic and local traffic which does not run on the trunk routes. It has to be decided how much time to allow for each phase.
When the Minister designates red routes and it comes to designing or redesigning the phasing of lights, the organisation that runs the lights—I bet that most people, even hon. Members who represent London constituencies do not know what it is——

Mr. Corbyn: Yes, I do.

Mr. Spearing: Perhaps some do, through consultation.
That organisation says that, in his order, the Minister said that priority must be given to such routes, to the disadvantage of local traffic which has to make cross-journeys. It does not involve only pedestrians but other movements in the same area. That problem may be covered by local authorities, but why should not the chambers of commerce that cover the appropriate red routes also be consulted?
I mentioned zebra crossings, but what about pelican crossings? Sometimes, they are more effective and efficient. If there are too many zebras, the traffic is held up, perhaps unduly. It is thought that it does not matter too much if pedestrians wait for 15 seconds to let the traffic pass. They can press the button and cross in a group, which is why pelican crossings are sometimes more effective and efficient. The Minister must bear in mind when he makes an order for a red route the fact that pelican crossings will disappear, or a pedestrian will have a much longer wait.
I have a vivid recollection of a route in a former constituency of mine—Western avenue in Acton. That was built for traffic, and the poor pedestrian could not cross it. I was assailed by residents' organisations which asked me to induce the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), when he was a Minister at the Department of Transport, to do something about it. The residents did not have even a pedestrian signal, so they had to watch the main traffic lights and cross four lanes of traffic, if they

could. An official came and got his feet wet, marching up and down to identify improvements to the route which are now enjoyed by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
If the ill-begotten scheme and the vast complex statutory jungle of 28 clauses following clause 41 are accepted, they will be a barrister's paradise, a bureaucrat's nightmare and a citizen's jungle. There should be proper consultation with bodies that are relevant to each local scheme, because there will be users of the thoroughfares as well as of the carriageways.

Mr. Corbyn: I support the amendment, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for moving it.
The clause states that, before making a priority route order, the Secretary of State shall consult the London authority—the borough council—
the relevant Commissioner or … Commissioners
and London Regional Transport. We had a lengthy debate about that in Committee and the Minister told us that it was the local authority's duty to consult local organisations. He said that it should be the local representative body that dealt with local opinion and views.
I have no problem with that, because my local authority went to enormous lengths to consult people about the red routes and to convey the opinions of local people to the Minister. It faithfully conveyed local opinion through its transport committee and the council itself, to the effect that there was massive opposition to the red route. Unfortunately, the Minister, in his high-handed and didactic fashion, ignored and overrode the wishes of local people.
Other local authorities in London may not be as cautious in consulting local opinion as the borough of Islington attempted to be. In Committee, even the Minister accepted that Islington had gone to considerable lengths to consult local groups. Other borough councils may not do the same or may not have the resources to undertake a consultation exercise.
One feature of the introduction of the red or priority route system in London has been that expensive schemes and consultation documents are put together by the Department of Transport, which local organisations then rebut. The local organisations want to propose their own ideas, but they do not have the resources to do so. The Minister should, in fairness, tell us what assistance may be given to local organisations so that they can propose their own traffic scheme.
When dealing with road planning, there is a David and Goliath approach. The Goliath of the Department of Transport descends on the poor unsuspecting folk of one community and then expects them to produce, in a short time, an alternative view if they disagree with the Department's ideas.
We suggest that there should be a guarantee of consultation with those who use particular roads. Some organisations do not operate within one borough boundary; they may go far wider. An example is the Dial-A-Ride Users Association, which operates across London and which has local derivatives, such as the Islington Disablement Association. Groups representing the disabled should be represented. Those who represent pedestrians who live in a particular area should be represented, as should those who represent cyclists, those


who represent delivery and collection, and local shopkeepers and business people. All those groups should be consulted and represented. The local authority's ability to put forward its view on the question before it is also important.
I find it rather depressing that, in 1991, when we should be talking far more about the development of activities and control in matters such as traffic, we face strong Government centralisation of local decision-making. It is depressing, as my own borough council of Islington has devolved its activities into 24 neighbourhood offices, which are popular within the borough. They give greater contact between the council and the people, and they provide far more effective consultation on issues such as traffic. Yet the borough council is unable to control what goes on with traffic across the borough.
A conglomeration of London boroughs banding together cannot decide what goes on London wide. Instead, the Secretary of State for Transport makes local and detailed decisions on where traffic flows go and on what powers the traffic commissioner has over neighbouring streets and sideworks. It is depressing that we should be moving into a period of centralisation.
If the system is brought into operation in London on the back of the abolition of our strategic authority, hon. Members who represent constituencies outside London should beware. If the Government abolish the county councils, these proposals will grow like triffids all over the country.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Like what?

Mr. Corbyn: Like triffids—John Wyndham's book, for the uninitiated. Triffids grew up everywhere.
Hon. Members will find that the process of red routes and of centralisation of traffic management comes directly under the Department of Transport. We already live in an over-centralised country. These proposals will make it far more centralised.
We propose a slight mitigation. There would have to be consultation with all groups of road users who have a legitimate point of view to put. The consultation proposed in the Bill is limited and rests solely on the need of wheeled traffic to get more quickly through the area. That wheeled traffic is largely cars and, to some extent, buses. I want the needs of pedestrians and those with disabilities to be taken into account—indeed, the needs of the community as a whole should be taken into account. It cannot be lost on Conservative Members that, if one speeds up the traffic on a particular road, one increases the dangers to pedestrians. That will also increase the sense of isolation between communities on each side of the road. If the small shops are killed off, the bigger shops will be killed off, and if that happens, the shopping community will be killed off.
As the Minister drives along the Archway road in his publicly owned and chauffeur-driven care, if he looks out of the window, he will spot a large graffito which reads "Red route=Dead route."
The red route is damaging the community. There should at least be wider consultation so that all the effects of increasing traffic speeds and flows can be considered before a priority route is imposed on a community that does not want such a route.

Mr. Chris Smith: I support amendment No. 13 because it seeks to widen, to a certain extent, the process of consultation that must be undertaken before a red route can be designated. I would like the amendment to go further. The Secretary of State should have a statutory duty to consult local residents and businesses about a proposed red route instead of relying entirely on the channel of communication available to local people through their local authority.
In the limited consultation on the pilot red route scheme, the local authority quite correctly relayed to the Minister the near-unanimous view of local people and businesses that they opposed the red route proposal. However, the Minister completely ignored those views. Instead, he placed enormous emphasis on the anecdotal evidence of a London Weekend Television crew which stopped a few drivers on Upper street and asked them what they thought about the red route in operation. If a Transport Minister can make crucial decisions about transport in that part of London in that way and place more reliance on the hearsay ad hoc evidence of a television crew than on the carefully consulted evidence from the local authority, the provisions in the Bill cannot be sufficient.
The Department of Transport's consultations about the pilot scheme for the red route were completely inadequate. The idea for it germinated during consultation on the east London assessment study. At no stage in those discussions, or in proposals from Department of Transport officials, was the prospect of a red route mentioned for Archway, along Holloway road, Upper street and into City road. The only consultation—[Interruption.] It would help if the Minister would listen to the debate. These matters are of crucial importance to my constituents. If the Minister treats my views and those of my constituents with the disdain that he is showing now, I cannot be surprised by decisions taken by the Department of Transport.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when he and I consulted people in Islington about the way in which the east London assessment study would affect the borough, we also asked our respective constituents about the red route and we received similar replies? Those responses were conveyed to the Secretary of State in the response to ELAS, but those responses were ignored and we discovered that the first priority route scheme was to be in our borough.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend leads me to my next point, which is that the only real consultation that was offered to my constituents on the institution of a red route along Holloway road and Upper street was when concrete proposals were set up in an exhibition in the town hall, with the Department of Transport telling us, "This is what is going to happen. We invite your views on it." A fait accompli was presented to local residents, with no real opportunity for local people to make it known to the Department of Transport that they did not want the red route in any shape or form.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Secretary of State for Transport is listening to the debate. Will my hon. Friend conjecture on the possible views of an hon. Member representing an Edinburgh constituency if a route in Edinburgh were in the hands of a Secretary of State for Transport in Whitehall whose

constituency was on the south coast? Would not such an hon. Member's constituents take objection to that fact, and does not much the same apply to us, in principle?

Mr. Smith: I hesitate to be drawn into a constitutional debate about the proprieties of the legislation as between Scotland and England. Nonetheless, my hon. Friend has a valid point and I am grateful to notice that the Secretary of State is in his place on the Treasury Bench and that he is listening to our debate with considerably more care and attention than his Under-Secretary, the Minister for Roads and Traffic.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the A1 is known as the London to Edinburgh main road?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has a point. Indeed, the route that was chosen for the pilot red route lies along the route of the A1.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: For the last time, because I wish to make some progress.

Mr. Bottomley: Is not the A1—the road to Edinburgh—slightly to the east? Is not the hon. Gentleman discussing a road that goes up to, say Chester? We seem to have gone slightly off course.

Mr. Corbyn: The Edinburgh road is the A1. The hon. Gentleman is thinking of the A5.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) must know that the A1 passes precisely along Upper street, Holloway road and Archway and finally heads north towards Edinburgh.
It is obvious from what happened with the institution of the pilot red route and from the Minister's response to that consultation that the consultation has been inadequate. The amendment seeks to improve that by, at the very least, including some provision for consultation with road users.
The Minister made great play on amendment No. 12 of the fact that there had been misinformation about the impact of the red route. I must advise him that the only disinformation is in the Department of Transport. It is not among local people, who know full well what the implementation of the pilot red route has proved and is proving to be.
The Minister conspicuously failed to answer the series of questions that I asked when I spoke to amendment No. 12, although I am sure that he has every intention of writing to me with his responses to those questions. Perhaps he will write to me with his response to this question also. Under what legal authority at present is a car that is parked on a Saturday afternoon on a single yellow line within, one must admit, a dotted red line along the red route in Upper street in my constituency—[Interruption] The amendment relates to red routes and consultation. We are talking about the interests of road users. If a road user parks a car on a red route on a single yellow line within a dotted red line on a Saturday afternoon, when parking on that single yellow line— —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I find it difficult to see how that matter can possibly arise under the amendment.

Mr. Smith: I do not wish to contest your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as you will appreciate, the amendment is about the consultation which the Secretary of State has to undertake before designating a red route. It is about consultation with
such organisations of road users as he thinks appropriate".
Under what legal authority can a road user with a cat who wishes to park on a single yellow line inside a dotted red box on the red route which has been implemented on a pilot basis in my constituency on a Saturday afternoon—when parking on a single yellow line is usually perfectly in order—be taken to task by police and charged with committing an offence? Once the Bill is passed, the position may be different, but what legal authority exists at present for the police to issue a ticket on that vehicle? I should be grateful if, perhaps after consulting his officials, the Minister could provide me with an answer to that question.
The Minister said earlier that the people of London would
appreciate the initiatives that the Government have taken in implementing red routes.
The Minister is mistaken, and if he consulted properly, with not only local residents but road users, he would find out that he was mistaken. We need more consultation, more consideration and more circumspection about red routes and rather less of the complacency that we have had from the Minister during out discussions this evening.

Mr. Chope: I am in no way complacent about the red routes, but I have to admit to being satisfied with the early effects of the pilot red routes. Indeed, I recall some Opposition Members suggesting that the red routes would never achieve their purpose and that the traffic would not flow more freely. Now that the traffic is flowing more freely, they have diverted their criticism and say that the routes will be at the expense of the local community.
The basis for the provisions for consultation on the priority route network is precedented in the Local Government Act 1985, which provides for consultation with the local authorities, but not with a whole host of other organisations. We think it reasonable that there should be statutory consultation with the authorities mentioned in the Bill, but that does not mean that there will not be provision for informal consultation by the Secretary of State with other organisations.

Mr. Corbyn: What would be the position of a local community organisation which felt that its local authority was unwilling, incapable or simply had not represented its views to the Secretary of State? Would it have redress against the local authority, or would it have direct access to the Secretary of State? It is a real problem which I can envisage occurring in some places.

Mr. Chope: That is a continual problem with any consultation in a rich democracy. Some organisations feel that to be consulted effectively means that they should have a veto on the outcome, when in fact their views simply have to be taken into account. I am sure that a democratically accountable local authority in London would not wish to ignore representations from such an organisation but would allow organisations to inform its

view, to be passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as part of the formal statutory consultation process.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have not checked tonight, so I am not 100 per cent. certain, but my recollection is that, when we debated the London Regional Transport Bill in Committee, at a fairly late stage the Government conceded that there should be included in the Bill formal provision for consultation with users and with the community. It may not have been in the Local Government Act 1985, but I think that it was in the London Regional Transport Act 1984. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether that precedent is more valuable than the precedent that he is citing.

Mr. Chope: The reason why I cited my precedent was that, as the hon. Gentleman will know, under the Local Government Act 1985, we established designated roads very similar to the roads that we are talking about under the Bill. In deciding what roads were to be designated, there was provision in that Act for statutory consultation with the council of the London borough in which the designated road was, and the council of any other London borough or county where it was likely to have an effect. It was assumed that, as part of the consultation process, those boroughs would represent the feelings of their citizens to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand that. Obviously the boroughs can do that, being a conduit of the views of local people and organisations. None the less, may I press the Minister to be brave, break from his brief and say that he will at least consider the precedent in the London Regional Transport Act and consider, obviously for potential amendment later rather than today, whether it would not be a good PR exercise for consultation with the public at large to be written on the face of the Bill?

Mr. Chope: I have already reflected, following the debate in Committee on the matter. That is why I referred to the precedent of the 1985 Act. That precedent relates to roads in London. The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question, and I shall certainly have inquiries made about the precedent which he thinks goes the other way. I cannot recall which way that precedent goes.
We do not intend to introduce the red route network without consultation, but I think that the way in which the Bill sets it out is right and that it would be for informal consultation by my right hon. Friend with some of the other organisations.

Mr. Corbyn: I am interested in what the Minister says about not introducing a wider red route network without consultation. Can he explain the origin of the curious map which appeared in Committee and seemed to show a positive plethora of red routes all over London? Who has been consulted on that? As I understand it, the commissioner has not been appointed, so he has not been consulted yet—if it is a he.

Mr. Chope: Indeed, the traffic director has not been appointed yet, and we do not know whether the person will be male or female. The map, which I am glad the hon. Gentleman found helpful, set out the designated routes to London. It set out a number of the other main highway networks in London. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the original consultation paper on the red routes for traffic


in London set out on one page, in quite vivid colour, the routes which we had in mind. That is not the final word on the matter, and there will be consultation following the appointment of the traffic director before my right hon. Friend decides which roads in London will be involved.

Mr. Corbyn: What is the status of the map?

Mr. Chope: It was an attempt to be of assistance to the Committee. This is the first time today that there has been a direct reference to the map. I assumed that, because hon. Members had the map before them in Committee, that facilitated the speedy dispatch of the business.
I do not think that I can add further to what I have said. We take the whole issue of consultation seriously, but we do not think that there is any purpose in writing into the statute provisions which are not strictly necessary.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government may have a slightly more positive view towards integrated planning, and the traffic director's post may be a jobshare. Will the Minister consider that possibility?
Although the Minister shows some reticence about going further than his brief—clearly, his reflection has not persuaded him to go all the way with us—he seemed to suggest that there was a slight chink of hope that the amendment might be accepted. On the basis of being ever hopeful that there is redemption for Ministers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43

THE TRAFFIC DIRECTOR FOR LONDON

11 pm

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 39, line 6, at end insert—
'(3A) The Director shall keep under review the manner in which the London authorities exercise their functions under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 in relation to priority routes or roads which, in his opinion, are likely to affect traffic using any priority route.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendment No. 52.

Mr. Chope: I need not detain the House for long. The amendment incorporates in the Bill the connection with the other legislation that hon. Members will shortly have a chance to consider—the New Roads and Street Works Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As I was not a member of the Committee, I apologise if the point that I now raise was canvassed there. Amendment No. 52 proposes to add the provision:
Where a London authority are asked by the Traffic Director for London to designate a street as a traffic-sensitive street
and so on. What will constitute a traffic-sensitive street? I presume it is a term of art.

Mr. Chope: Traffic-sensitive streets are roads in which works would cause significant disruption to traffic under the terms of the New Roads and Street Works Bill. They will have applied to them special requirements for the

planning and co-ordination of those works. In other words, local highways authorities will have power to give directions to undertakers of works governing the timing of the works. So the highway authority will be very much in the driving seat in ensuring that the minimum amount of disruption is caused by street works on those roads.

Ms. Ruddock: I understand that the details of the way in which the traffic-sensitive route provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Bill will operate have been worked out by a joint local authority/local utility working party and that that working party is not aware of the proposals in amendment No. 52. It seems to that working party that those proposals would greatly undermine the spirit of co-operation that now exists in the working party. It appears, according to the amendment, that the traffic director and the Secretary of State could reach an agreement over the heads of local authorities and local utilities and ignore any agreement that might have been reached by the joint working party.

Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps the Minister will explain amendment No. 45 in more detail. I understood that, under the New Roads and Street Works Bill, local authorities would be responsible for co-ordinating pavement and street repairs after various statutory undertakers and others had completed works. Why is it necessary for the functions of local authorities to be removed in respect of the priority route network?
I am not clear to what extent the authority of the traffic director will extend beyond the priority route. Will it be the immediate junctions, feeder roads to them or any roads that could be affected by the priority route scheme? If the definition were drawn at its widest, large areas of a borough might be handed over to the control of the traffic director rather than remain with the elected local authority.

Mr. Chope: The answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) is that amendment No. 52 provides for the traffic director to request the London local authorities—the highway authorities for priority routes or roads—which are likely to affect traffic on any priority route and to designate those as traffic-sensitive. If a local authority were to fail to comply with the traffic director's request, the amendment gives the director a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who may direct that the local authority complies. That seems eminently reasonable. Indeed, some people might think that power to issue such directions should be given to the traffic director himself. We do not seek that power, and I hope that that will be taken as showing the spirit of co-operation to which the hon. Member for Deptford referred. The hon. Lady says that that is not what they think. Perhaps my explanation will allay their fears.

Mr. Corbyn: Do I understand the Minister to say that the power of an order would rest solely with the Secretary of State, who would have to hear a report from the traffic director about the director's dispute with the local authority and then decide whether to make an order? Would such an order be subject to parliamentary approval?

Mr. Chope: I do not think that it would be subject to parliamentary approval, but the procedure about which the hon. Gentleman speaks would take place. The traffic


director would have to put his case to the Secretary of State. If the local authority wished to put an alternative view, the Secretary of State would have to adjudicate.
Amendment No. 45 would require the traffic director to keep under review the manner in which the local highway authorities discharge their duties under the New Roads and Street Works Bill. The most important of those is the duty to co-ordinate works of all kinds in relation to priority routes and other roads likely to affect traffic on a priority route. It is envisaged that in that way the director will have access to the register which will be established by the Bill. That will enable him to maintain an oversight of the conduct of roadworks affecting the performance of priority routes.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked about the distance from the priority routes of roads that could affect those routes. Obviously, that depends on circumstances. I cannot give a more precise answer, but that is the common-sense answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45

DUTY OF LONDON AUTHORITIES TO PREPARE LOCAL PLANS

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move, amendment No. 41, in page 40, line 41, at end add—
'(c) the needs of frontagers for road access and short term parking:
It is in order to remind the House of the context of the amendment. An extraordinarily complex set of orders, regulations and so on were the subject of an exchange during debate on the last amendment, and I was completely lost. I understand that the Minister can make an order for a section of road, and that he does so in accordance with management guidance under a statutory code that he intends to issue. He will also issue objectives to the so-called director of traffic, who is really a director of red routes. Therefore, there will be statutory objectives.
There will also be a London network plan, which may emerge in due course to be contained on the map to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred. We then descend to council level. Having received all these pieces of paper, each London authority must draw up a local network plan. Clause 45(6) states:
a London authority shall have regard to—

(a) the Secretary of State's traffic management guidance: and
(b) the network plan."
I assume that management guidance subsumes the statutory objectives, which means that the authorities have many criteria to look at.
The amendment deals with "the needs of frontages …" If the local authority does not take note of the needs of local frontages, who will? The Minister rejected an amendment moved on behalf of organisations and said that local authorities would look after them. The needs of frontages are very important. I do not understand why that is not there. I hope that the Minister will have another look at this.
As I pointed out earlier, if the use of the thoroughfare is to be oriented to the needs and speed of traffic, which is the object of the Bill, the needs of the frontagers will be squeezed out. If the needs of traffic are to be emphasised

in the "traffic management guidance", and if they are to be further emphasised in the objectives, which are large and can be made by the Secretary of State whether he comes from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or London, the local authority does not have to have regard to anything else, because the Bill says that the local authority "shall have regard".
In other words, the poor old local authority, which is the last statutory bastion of local interest, is or could he—I ascertain that that would be the Minister's objective—prohibited from having regard to the needs of the local frontagers. If the Minister's guidance, management guidance and objectives cut that out, local authorities cannot do it. Moreover, they cannot do it by a combination of statute which I have tried to unravel and the predilections of the Secretary of State and his Minister, which have been made all too clear in earlier debates.
One might imagine, as the Minister said grandly, that the Secretary of State will consider an appeal from the director, answer an Adjournment debate, and so on, but that will not be the case. It will not even be Ministers who looks at such matters. They are great political figures with national and international matters, constituency matters and party matters to attend to, regardless of the political party to which they belong.
One Secretary of State—this is a true story—was outside his property one day when a man turned up with a brown envelope. He asked whether the Secretary of State was the householder. When he said he was, the man gave him the brown envelope. The Secretary of State opened it, to find that it informed him that the Secretary of State was minded to designate his land as being of special scientific interest. The Secretary of State said, "This is wrong," to which the man said "Oh no, Sir—I assure you it is correct." The Secretary of State said "You're lying." When the man, affronted, asked why, the Secretary of State replied, "Because I am the Secretary of State for the Environment." That was the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
Such decisions will not be made by any of the Ministers here today—or their successors, who might be some of my hon. Friends here. They will be decided by others. It was difficult enough for members of the Greater London council to decide on such things. They will not be decided by Members who can be tackled in the Lobby by an affronted Member. Unless the Minister accepts my amendment, the needs of frontagers will be statutorily cut out. I am surprised about that, because some of the frontagers will be people whom Conservative Members might wish to encourage. I might also wish to encourage them, as I encourage small-scale private or public enterprise which helps the common weal.
If roads are to be converted into semi-racetracks and all the criteria of traffic management applied thereto, frontagers' interests will be ignored. My amendment does not tell local authorities that they should give those interests priority; only that they should "have regard to" them. But as written and as spoken to, as the Bill goes and as the Executive have made clear, they shall not have regard to the needs of the frontagers, whether it be in Upper street, Islington, Streatham high road, East Hill, Wandsworth or wherever the roads will run. As I said, many of them will be in the sort of high streets which were common in Edwardian and Victorian London.
I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts and that he will accept the logic that I have attempted to erect in moving this amendment.
Frontagers need road access, not necessarily parking. Consider the needs, not of shops or premises, but of a disabled or elderly person who wishes to unload some furniture, and is not parking in the strict sense of the word for 10 minutes but merely for three or four minutes. That is what is meant by frontager's access to the road. Occasionally they need access.
Short-term parking could mean for the purposes of delivering to shops, waiting while someone goes into a premises to collect children, going to the doctor's, or picking up someone who is a little late because they are delayed inside the house. All those things are very important for frontagers on such thoroughfares. As the Bill stands, and according to the Minister, however, they will not be regarded by the local authority, which is the last bastion of defence for the liberty of the subject in this matter.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My Docklands colleague, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I have a self-interested constituency fear about prospects. I guess that a road which passes from west to east along what is roughly the northernmost boundary of my hon. Friend's constituency might be a fairly obvious candidate for designation before too long.

Mr. Spearing: Barking road.

Mr. Hughes: The A2 is also likely to be a sure candidate for a red route, given that the A1 has already undergone a trial.
My best response to my hon. Friend's story about the former Secretary of State being served a notice is that this morning, before I left home, I heard a knock upon my window, which is only a couple of feet from the road. Today is the second day since the local authority opened a neighbourhood housing office on the site next to my home. I think that the site must have been chosen deliberately for fairly obvious reasons—to add to the mischief that the local authority can impose upon me. The person who knocked on the window had been going up and down the road for some time and had been unable to find anywhere to pay her rent, so she offered it to me. I was minded to take it, but integrity got the better of me and I directed her to the building next door, which is the neighbourhood housing office but has nothing on it to say so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South spoke to the amendment tabled in our names. I must mischievously remind him about the second part, which is printed over the page, which I wish to tackle as well. We want consultation by the local authority, which will take into account two main worries—frontagers' needs for road access and parking, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and
the safety, convenience, and amenity of residents on and adjacent to any proposed priority route.
I can be brief because it is even more self-evident that this amendment poses no difficulty for the Minister, and I anticipate that if he is feeling generous he may be able to accept it readily. The amendment specifically gives a duty to the local authority, not to the Government.

Governments are always more willing to impose duties on local authorities than to accept duties imposed on themselves or on any officer or official appointed by them.
The amendment will make the 33 London boroughs have regard to management, guidance, the network plan and these extra requirements. As regards
the safety, convenience, and amenity of residents on and adjacent to any proposed priority route",
will the Minister give an undertaking that the interests of people living on or adjacent to, for example, the A2, which is the Old Kent road and the New Kent road, will automatically be taken into account by the local authority? If there is any doubt about that because the Bill is not explicit, just as we encourage good planning practice by consulting people in the immediate neighbourhood of a planning application, we should surely encourage good traffic planning practice by requiring consultation with, and an obligation to have regard to the interests of, those living nearby.
The planning legislation does not always work well—not least because consultation is not obligatory, but an optional extra for local authorities. It is good practice, but they do not always follow that practice—sometimes intentionally, but more often accidentally. The amendment would impose that duty on them. It would be encouraging if my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and I could leave the debate knowing that an obligation would be placed on our local authorities to consult the relevant people.
I entirely understand that, if we are to have a red route—the Minister already knows my views about that—we cannot have a red route which suddenly has vehicles parked along it affording delivery to the frontages, or short-term parking for other reasons. It is a perpetual problem to reconcile the needs of those who have, over the years, lived next to or run a business on a main road. I am always receiving complaints. One example is a shop called Jay's on Lower road, Rotherhithe—an old family business which has been there for years. When there was very short-term parking outside—when something was being delivered, or someone with a disabled person's badge was leaving a vehicle—a second later, a traffic warden would appear out of the blue and either issue a ticket or, on occasion, do something worse, the vehicle would be taken further down the road and someone would be inconveniencing the traffic for a long time.
I have complained when goods vehicles have parked on roads which are needed for the through passage of traffic, reducing a two-lane road to a one-lane road. Neither my hon. Friend nor I would argue that the nature of a road is not changed by allowing indiscriminate parking at any time, by any vehicle, for any purpose. We are saying that consideration must be given to reconciling the needs of established users of the road with the needs of those who are using the road. I hope that the amendment will prove appealing.

Mr. Corbyn: I support the amendment, especially paragraph (d). The initial effect of the priority-route scheme thrust on the people of Islington is the difficulty experienced by people using local shops, especially the disabled. Pedestrians have had problems trying to cross the road, because of the increased traffic speeds in the central part of the Holloway road; I am not sure whether that applies to either the Archway or the Upper street end.

Mr. Chris Smith: That is true of most of Upper street: traffic has, on the whole, speeded up. My hon. Friend must also bear in mind the fact that the two bottlenecks at Holloway road and the Angel still exist at either end of Upper street, so there has not been massive benefit for the traffic using it. Between those two points, however, the speed of the traffic, and therefore the potential danger to pedestrians, is much greater.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend. The concern that we have been expressing all along is that the next thing that will happen is that the Secretary of State will come along and take one look at Archway island, Highbury corner and the Angel and decide that we need a massive road widening scheme, which will increase the volume of traffic that can use the road and so create further problems.
The amendment refers to
residents on and adjacent to any proposed priority route.
They should surely be borne in mind, but our experience so far is that they are not, and that traffic—including parking and delivery vehicles forced off the red route—tends to park on side streets as near as it can to the priority route. The traffic wardens and police have been told to direct their efforts towards the red route, and apparently the policing effect on the immediate side roads has been reduced to the extent that disabled persons' parking bays the council has had a considerable number installed—are now often occupied by vehicles delivering to shops and other nearby establishments. It is a serious problem.
I hope that the Minister will understand that much more thought needs to be given to the problem. It is no good merely rushing in with a red route, without the necessary local junction works that should go with it and without proper consideration of the needs of the local community. The message that is conveyed by that lack of consideration is that the one purpose of the red routes is to get a greater volume of traffic moving more rapidly through a highly built-up area which in fact needs less traffic, less noise, less pollution and greater mobility. The red route offers none of those things.

Mr. Chope: I have much sympathy with the points made by Opposition Members about the importance of the needs of frontagers and residents in relation to priority routes. Certainly their needs will be taken into account in the development of priority routes and in the implementation of the measures in accordance with approved local plans, but there is no need for them to be referred to specifically in the clause, as suggested in the amendment.
Those considerations, and other issues—such as safety and environmental questions, special help for buses and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists—will be fully discussed in the traffic management guidance produced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State under clause 42. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is sceptical about whether my right hon. and learned Friend will ever look at the guidance that he issues, but the hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the traffic management guidance issued in April 1987 under paragraph 6 of schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985, following the demise of the GLC. I have not consulted the then Secretary of State, but I would be most surprised if that detailed document had not been examined by Transport Ministers.
The traffic management guidance, which my right hon. and learned Friend has established is up for consultation,

will set out the Secretary of State's objectives in designating the priority routes and will provide the overall framework within which the traffic director and the local authorities must work. The traffic director will be required to pay regard to the guidance in preparing his network plan under clause 44 and the local authorities will be required to pay regard to both the guidance and the network plan in preparing their local plans under clause 45.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister makes a reasonable point. Is he saying that the guidance that will be given by the Secretary of State will explicitly require a local authority, in preparing its plan, to have to regard to the two categories of user dealt with in the amendment? If so, what will be the sanction or remedy for those concerned if the local authority does not fulfil that requirement properly?

Mr. Chope: The same remedy will apply as applies under statutory law at the moment for any local authority that unreasonably ignores the representations made to it. The hon. Gentleman will be as familiar as any other hon. Member with the provisions for judicial review. Those are the remedies that will be available.

Mr. Hughes: What I want to know is whether the traffic management guidance will set out effectively the duties of the local authority. That is what we are trying to insert in the Bill. I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in saying that, if we were to receive from the Government an undertaking that this requirement will be set out in a secondary document, we should at least know that the local authority would have to have regard to these categories. That would certainly help us, and I am sure that it would be of interest to the people who will ultimately be affected by the proposals.

Mr. Chope: After the local plans have been drawn up, the interests about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned will be taken into account when the orders giving effect to those plans are drafted. There will be consultation and, under existing legislation, there is provision for a public inquiry. Anyone who feels that his interests is ignored could have his say at that stage.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It would be helpful if, in due course, the Minister were to set out for the benefit of those who are interested—I am thinking especially of hon. Members representing London constituencies—what specific duties, by way of consultation with residents and businesses, it is envisaged a local authority will have.

Mr. Chope: I shall be happy to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
I hope that I have been able to allay some concern. The traffic management guidance will not be identical to, but will in a sense be based on, the guidance that was issued in 1987. Hon. Members who examine it will see that it goes into quite a lot of detail. I hope that, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Spearing: It seems that there are one or two misunderstandings. I do not think that I suggested—certainly I did not mean to suggest—that the Secretary of State for the Environment, or any other Minister, would


not examine the guidelines for the red routes. My suggestion was that the Secretary of State would not be able to give particular orders the attention that those affected think they should have. I have told the story about the Secretary of State being informed that the Secretary of State was going to serve a notice in respect of his own property. Surely that amounts to a warning. I did not suggest that the guidelines would not be looked at. It is a question of detail. Because of the facts of time and politics, cases are unlikely to receive the attention that they deserve.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is right to emphasise the question of residents. I have mentioned the cases of disabled people and children, but the hon. Gentleman brought to mind something that is even more important. The amendment that I drew up about a week ago referred to residents on and adjacent to any proposed priority route. The knock-on effect of a priority route will be significant for those whose properties are adjacent to it.
Let us consider the case of an existing priority route where certain parking is allowed, or where traffic wardens' discretion is exercised reasonably. Here, people will seek parking places, possibly for some distance, along the side roads—a matter that has been mentioned already. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned Barking road, which is not very far from the ground of West Ham United. Parking problems have arisen there already, although the situation generally is well organised by the police. But in such circumstances all sorts of things could happen. These red routes will cause a great deal of knock-on trouble. What about the question of property values, for instance?
Amenities include values, and I should imagine that the value of any residential or other property adjacent to or especially facing a red route, would take a dive in value almost immediately after the maps are published. Our exchanges may cause estate agents throughout London to seek copies of the map that was available to the Committee. I can imagine Tory Members receiving letters from their constituents, saying "The value of my property is going down. We did not know that these would be red routes, and they have reduced the value of our property by x per cent."
The Minister may consider that that is inevitable. However, to instruct local authorities to take the map into account but deprive them of it is quite extraordinary. The Minister's responses so far have been that the Government could include it in the guidelines for red routes, but he did not undertake that the same considerations—virtually the words in the amendment—would be included in the Bill. In response to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, the Minister carefully and skilfully avoided making that commitment. I am surprised, because he is only taking it into account. If he does not include it in the new guidelines, he is implying that the Government cannot or should not take it into account, which centralises the matter even more.
The Minister has taken some matters on board, and I hope that, before the Bill is considered in another place, he will publish the draft guidelines for red routes. He referred to guidance that was published earlier for traffic management after the abolition of the Greater London Council. Why, therefore, can he not publish the Government's objectives? After all, they are referred to in

the Bill and will be very important, I hope that those who consider the Bill in another place will take note of those objectives, guidance notes or statutory guidance. Can they really consider the issue before the objectives are published? Had I been on the Committee, I should have wanted the draft objectives and guidance to be available because, without them, the merits of earlier clauses could not have been properly assessed.
The Minister has taken account of some of those matters. He may wish to negative the amendment, but I feel strongly enough not to withdraw it, in the hope that the matter will be taken up in another place.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 45

DUTY OF LONDON AUTHORITIES TO PREPARE LOCAL PLANS

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 41, line 18, leave out
'on the priority routes to which their plan relates'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 18 to 22.

Mr. Chope: The amendment reflects the Government's willingness to listen to the Opposition's representations. I said that I would consider one particular issue that they raised in Committee, and the amendment reflects our acceptance of their arguments on that occasion.

Ms. Ruddock: In a few small ways, we have had some victories in Committee. We are grateful to the Minister for bringing the amendments forward now.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 41, line 19, after 'exercise', insert
'on or in relation to the priority routes to which their plan relates'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 46

THE DIRECTOR'S TRUNK ROAD LOCAL PLANS

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 43, line 4, leave out '
on the priority routes to which their plan relates'.

No. 20, in line 5, after 'exercise', insert
'on or in relation to the priority routes to which their plan relates'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 47

THE MINISTER'S TRUNK ROAD LOCAL PLANS

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 44, line 14, leave out
'on the priority routes to which their plan relates'.

No. 22, in page 44, line 15, after 'exercise', insert
'on or in relation to the priority routes to which their plan relates'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Mr. Corbyn: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 45, line 1, leave out from 'any' to 'debt' in line 38 and insert
'The Secretary of State may, by order subject to negative resolution of either House of Parliament, require any reasonable expenses incurred by him in the exercise of his powers under subsection (7) above to be paid to him by the London authority.'.
The amendment is important. One of the more disquieting features of the Bill is that it gives the traffic commissioner powers over local authorities. In addition, it gives him powers to override the wishes of the local


authorities to do works in their districts and then charges them for it. The amendment seeks to allow some parliamentary scrutiny of what is taking place.
As I said earlier, the Bill provides for significant centralisation of power away from local authorities towards central Government. We seek to provide that the Secretary of State may,
by order subject to negative resolution of either House of Parliament, require any reasonable expenses incurred by him in the exercise of his powers under subsection (7) above to be paid to him by the London authority.
That would allow parliamentary consent for what is an invasion of the prerogative of local authorities in local traffic management schemes. We tabled the amendment for that purpose.
The Minister did not make it clear in Committee why such centralisation was necessary. He is unable to point to an example of any London local authority which is unwilling to discuss the problems of traffic passing through its district. Local authorities have a different philosophy from the Secretary of State, in that the majority of Labour-controlled authorities believe that London would be better off if there were less traffic rather than more. We believe that there should be a traffic authority—subject to democratic election—for London as a whole. The Bill does not propose that, and we are not likely to get it from any legislation stemming from the Bill.
We can expect the Secretary of State to be answerable to Parliament for what charges he places on local authorities; otherwise, an unelected official might disagree with a local authority. The Secretary of State would hear the dispute between the local authority and that official and might decide in favour of the traffic director for London. A substantial bill would come to the local authority, which might be charge-capped and not able to divert resources to traffic works. It might have decided that its priorities lay elsewhere. There should at least be parliamentary scrutiny of such action.

Mr. Chope: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The intervention by the Secretary of State, under the provisions of the clause, would be part of a last resort, when all attempts at persuasion had failed The hon. Gentleman said that it was impossible to quote a precedent for that—obviously it is at present, because we have not started to implement the scheme. But if what is happening in Islington is indicative of what might happen in future, who can say whether such powers will be necessary? I hope that they will not be, but if they are needed, it is reasonable that the Secretary of State should be able to recover his administrative expenses from local authorities. It is not appropriate for him to have to present an account in the form of a statutory instrument to be laid before Parliament.

Mr. Corbyn: It is all very well for the Minister to say that, but we live in a country where the expenditure of local authorities, particularly in London, is under the tight control of central Government policies and directives. In reality, we have a process of fining local authorities for alleged non-co-operation in the implementation of the priority route schemes by the Secretary of State, who cannot be brought to Parliament to account for his actions. That is totally unsatisfactory.
I should have thought that the Minister would recognise that local authorities have a legitimate role in traffic planning and management in London. If they do

not, perhaps he should be honest and say that he wishes to take over all traffic management and planning in London, rather than using the stealthy approach and taking over only priority route schemes. That appears to be the logic of his answer.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 54

THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S PARKING GUIDANCE

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 49, line 30, after second 'to' insert 'those authorities'.

No. 47, in page 49, line 38, after 'issuing' insert 'or varying'.

No. 48, in page 49, line 41, after 'Transport' insert—
'(bb) such associations of London authorities (if any) as he thinks appropriate'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 62

REPRESENTATIONS IN RELATION TO IMMOBILISATION OF VEHICLES UNDER SECTION 6o

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 54, line 41, leave out 'made' and insert 'received by them'.

No. 50, in page 54, line 45, leave out '42' and insert '56'.

No. 51, in page 55, line 13, leave out '42' and insert '56'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 63

APPOINTMENT OF PARKING ADJUDICATORS BY JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE LONDON AUTHORITIES

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 55, line 46, leave out 'this part' and insert 'sections 54–65'.
We now move from the controversial subject of red routes to the equally—if not more—controversial subject of parking. Clauses 54 to 65 are labelled "Parking in London" and contain yet another series of guidelines on parking for local authorities, which are to be issued by the Secretary of State. The authorities will have to draw up a series of proposals, and the guidelines cover almost seven pages of the Bill. I am sure that they were discussed at great length in Committee. Following your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not venture into that, although I am sure that a fascinating description of the guidelines would be in order, as they are about to descend on unsuspecting Londoners.
The guidelines on parking tell local authorities what to do. I doubt that they relate only to red routes, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that. As I understand them, they apply to parking in general and therefore subsume parking in or around red routes or areas affected by red routes.
It is curious that the guidelines involve appeals, new bodies and a vast amount of bureaucracy, which is extraordinary coming from a party that does not believe in that sort of thing.
Clause 63 states that a joint committee of London authorities shall, be set up to appoint parking adjudicators. Paragraph 3(a) relates to the amendment. It states that the London authorities shall,
with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, appoint persons to act as parking adjudicators for the purposes of this Part of this Act".


Having carried out a great deal of traffic management through the red routes, the Secretary of State seeks to take complete control of parking guidance. That puts in the shade something that he said earlier today about the local authority authorities taking control of parking. If they have to deal with parking under his guidance, it may differ from what some of us were led to believe earlier.
Not content with that, the Bill states that the local authorities will name the persons who, with the Lord Chancellor's consent, will be the adjudicators. Their duties will include responsibility for parking matters, including the costs. The rules that they will have to follow will be rather complicated.
I can imagine what will happen. When there is a hassle, someone will ask who appointed the adjudicators. The Minister will be able to say that the local authorities appointed them. As has happened in so many other spheres, the Government's responsibilities will be loaded on to local authorities.
I suggest that it would be more appropriate if the proposals were not in the clauses that deal with red routes, but in clauses 54 to 65, because they deal with matters refer to parking in general. It seems that the proposals refer back to the earlier clauses which relate to red routes. That suggests that the adjudicators may also have a great deal of power over the red routes.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. Have the adjudicators any functions in respect of the red routes in clauses before clause 54, or are they concerned only in duties and obligations in clause 54 onwards? If the answer is the latter, I suggest that the Bill should say so. If the former, can the Minister tell us what role the adjudicators will have in respect of red routes? They are yet another group of persons amid a plethora of local authorities, directors, Ministers and guidance with which we shall have to grapple.

Mr. Chope: The adjudicators will be concerned with the latter of the two categories referred to by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). However, it is fair to say that, if there is a permitted parking area on a red route, it will come under the local authority parking regime to which the Bill refers. The adjudicators will be able to adjudicate on grievances in relation to the penalty for overstaying on that parking area.
I understand that the hon. Member for Newham, South is trying to be helpful and is suggesting a drafting improvement. I am advised that the intention is set out clearly in the Bill as drafted. However, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I will look to see whether any benefit could be gained from further clarification.

Mr. Spearing: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the clarification, but it makes my worries even greater. The Minister has confirmed that, where parking is allowed on red routes—perhaps where the roads widen or where there is a facility for parking that does not interfere with the traffic flow—and there are disputes, grievances or matters coming within their jurisdiction, the adjudicators will have statutory powers. That is the present position.
Yet again, therefore, we confirm the all-to-frequent position—dare I mention the poll tax—in which authoritarian legislation from the centre has to be

administered. In this case, it will be administered by semi-judicial fiat adjudicators who are appointed by the hapless local authorities. In an earlier debate, it was said that the local authorities cannot even take into account the proper—in my interpretation—interests of frontages, both residential and otherwise.
Although I understand why the Minister has clarified the matter, it shows only that the scheme will cause a great deal of trouble in London and to the Government. I cannot push the amendment, so I thank the Minister for his clarification and tell him that it will cause him and everyone else an awful lot of trouble.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64

FIXING OF CERTAIN PARKING AND OTHER CHARGES FOR LONDON

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 58, line 15, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 69

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendment made: In page 60, line 31, at end insert—

'(3A) In determining, for the purposes of any provision of this Part of this Act, whether a penalty charge has been paid before the end of a particular period, it shall be taken to be paid when it is received by the London authority concerned.—[Mr. Chope.]

Schedule 2

AMENDMENT TO SCHEDULE 2 TO THE ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACT 1988

Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 66, line 10, column 4, leave out '3' and insert '4'.
The effect of the amendment is to increase the penalty for driving after making a false declaration about physical fitness, from a level 3 fine to a level 4 fine. Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 deals with the physical fitness of drivers. An applicant for a driving licence must disclose in his or her application whether he or she is suffering or has ever suffered from certain disabilities. The Secretary of State must refuse a licence to an applicant who is suffering from a relevant disability. The disabilities, which are prescribed by regulation, include epilepsy, severe mental handicap, liability to sudden attacks of giddiness or fainting and acute short sight.
Clause 16(1) amends that section of the 1988 Act by inserting a new subsection, making it an offence to drive a vehicle if the person involved knows that the declaration about physical fitness in his or her application for a driving licence is false. Paragraph 21 of schedule 2 introduces a consequential amendment to schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, setting the penalty for the new offence at a level 3 fine.
This is an important area of road traffic law because the condition of the driver of a vehicle is as important as the condition of the vehicle. It is not simply selfish or stupid to drive when medically unfit to do so, it is also potentially dangerous to other road users.
The amendment would increase the penalty for that offence from a level 3 to a level 4 fine. It is important primarily as a way of highlighting the importance of the


offence. The amendment would also bring the penalty more into line with the penalty for driving after a licence has been refused or revoked under section 92 of the 1988 Act, which is six months imprisonment or a level 5 fine.
It is, however, important to add that the amendment deals with only one aspect of the problem: to ensure that people who are not medically fit to drive do not do so and therefore do not create a road safety risk for other road users. Equally important—and in the current financial climate more difficult—is the need to ensure that alternative forms of transport are available through concessionary fare schemes and the availability of services designed specifically to help people with disabilities so that they are not tempted to continue to drive and to break the law. I hope that the Minister will accept this simple amendment, which will increase safety on our roads.

Mr. Chope: I am happy to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 34. in page 66 line 48 after second 'accident)', insert '(a)'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 66, line 48 leave out from 'in' to end off line 49 and insert
'columns 3 and 4 there shall be substituted—

(a) Summarily
(a) six months or level 5 on the standard scale or both.


(b) On indictment
(b) "two years or a fine or both".'.

Government amendment No. 35.

Ms. Ruddock: I want to refer to amendment No. 16.
The act of failing to report an accident can have serious consequences. It may mean that a casualty is not dealt with as speedily as would otherwise be the case. It may mean that valuable evidence, in terms of either the state of the driver or the condition of the vehicle is lost, and it creates additional work for the police as a result of having to trace the driver and establish the circumstances surroundingg the incident. In short, it is an extremely serious offence which can have costly implications, both for the individuals concerned and the police.
In certain circumstances—for example, where a driver is over the legal alcohol limit—there may be a temptation to run. It is essential that in such cases the driver is in a position where the consequences of running are likely to be worse than not running.
Amendment No. 16 would increase the maximum penalty for failure to stop and report an accident to two years imprisonment or a fine, or both. The amendment would further provide different maximum penalties for the two different modes of prosecution.

Mr. Waller: Eight or so hours ago, I paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for listening to what had been said in Committee and for tabling an appropriate new clause. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend once more because, following what I said in Committee, he has moved an amendment that goes a long way towards implementing what I suggested.
The recommendations of Dr. North were not invariably correct. He failed to take account of varying degrees of culpability attached to the offence of failing to stop to report an accident. The Magistrates Association was unhappy with the more restrictive discretion accorded to courts. I welcome the fact that that has been recognised and that the discretion that will now be available to courts in terms of the number of penalty points that they decide

to award in individual cases will be much greater. That is a great improvement, and it should be welcomed. That is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for his comments. I cannot accept amendment No. 16, suggested by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), because it goes too far in increasing the maximum penalty to as much as two years' imprisonment. I hope that the House will reject that amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 66, line 49 at end insert
'and
(b) in column 7 for "8–10" there shall be substituted "5–10".'.

No. 36, in page 67, leave out line 4 and insert—


Discretionary, if committed otherwise than by virtue of subsection (5) or (11).
Obligatory, if committed otherwise than by virtue of subsection (5) or (11).
3'




—[Mr. Chope]

Schedule 3

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 70, line 39, at end insert—
'. In section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (experimental traffic orders) in subsection (1)(b) for the words "and 84" there shall be substituted the words "and 84(1)(a) or (b)".'

No. 93, in page 70, line 40, leave out
'the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984'
and insert 'that Act'.

No. 95, in page 71, line 19, at end insert—

'. In paragraph 13 of Schedule 9 to that Act (consent of Secretary of State before local authority make certain orders), after sub-paragraph (1)(d)(ii) there shall be inserted—

"(iii) a provision imposing a prohibition by virtue of paragraph (c) of that subsection, or".'.

No. 37, in page 74, line 9 leave out from beginning to end of line 18.—[Mr. Chope.]

Amendments made: No. 96, in page 77, line 32, at end insert—

'(2) In section 2(5) of that Act (disapplication of section 1(1) in Scotland relating to an offence under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) for the word "(2)" there shall be substituted the words "24(1)".'.

No. 97, in page 81, line 43, leave out 'In'.

No. 98, in page 81, line 45, after '35)' insert
'shall be amended as follows.

"(2) In subsection (1), after the word "where", there shall be inserted the words "in England and Wales".

(3)'.

No. 99, in page 82, line 21 leave out 'In'.

No. 100, in page 82, line 21 after '(interpretation)', insert
'shall be amended as follows.

(2) After the definition of "authorised person" there shall be inserted—
chief constable' means, in Scotland in relation to any conditional offer, the chief constable for the area in which the conditional offer has been issued".

(3)'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 5

PARKING PENALTIES

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 87, line 1 leave out 'made' and insert 'received by them'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 6

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS IN RELATION TO LONDON

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 90, line 18 at end insert
'in consequence of extraordinary circumstances'.—[Mr. Chope.]

No. 52, in page 91, line 30 at end insert—

'The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991

. In section 60 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (traffic-sensitive streets), after subsection (3) there shall be added—
(4) Where a London authority are asked by the Traffic Director for London to designate a street as a traffic-sensitive street and the authority decline to do so, the Director may appeal to the Secretary of State who may direct that the street be designated.
In this subsection 'London authority' and 'priority route' have the same meanings as in Part II of the Road Traffic Act 1991.".'.—[Lords James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 7

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 93, line 41, column 3, at end insert—



'Section 75(a)(iii). In section 75(6), paragraph (c) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.



Section 75(8).'.

No. 101, in page 94, line 18, at end insert—



'Section 54(8).



Section 59(6)



Section 60.'

—[ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Chope.]

Mr. Corbyn: The Committee and Report stages of the Bill have been fascinating. I wish to put three brief points on the record. First, like everyone else, I welcome any methods that improve road safety and the safety of road users, be they in a car, pedestrians, cyclists or anything else. However, the Bill is, in many ways, a missed opportunity. We in this country are in danger of presiding over an enormous increase in the amount of road traffic when we should be considering alternative means of transport and the environmental effects of the continually increasing use of private motor cars. We should be especially concerned about the effects of that on our cities.
Secondly, part II contains a major extension of central Government powers over those of local authorities, with

the introduction of the priority route scheme. That will not enhance safety; it will increase the levels of noise, dust and gas pollution in our inner city areas. The Government will take powers away from the local authorities which badly need them and will introduce a traffic director for London, with whom traffic commissioners will work.
Thirdly, if the Bill is enacted—I suspect that it will be—the Government will achieve the principle of taking many traffic planning measures away from local authorities in London, and exactly the same could be done in other parts of the country. We are moving to a ridiculously centralised state where very localised traffic matters can be decided by the Secretary of State for Transport and charged to the local authority. The principle of reducing the number of cars and the amount of traffic that enters the central area of London, or any other major city if the provisions are extended to other cities, has been ignored.
The people of London have made their views clear when opposing motorway building schemes and the introduction of the priority route scheme. They do not wish to see more traffic in the inner urban area. They want less. They want a cleaner city, with fewer cars and better public transport. I wish that the Bill met the needs of Londoners in that respect. Tragically, I fear that it does not.

Sir Philip Goodhart: By legalising speed cameras and red light cameras, part I should make a major contribution to the improvement of road safety. Part II, and the red route scheme, should make a major contribution to easing traffic congestion in the capital. I am sorry that the Opposition have been so churlish in their approach to the Bill's efforts to ease congestion and that they seem anxious to let traffic jams continue.

Mr. Spearing: This should not have been a matter for party controversy. Traffic in London has been a continuing concern of all its citizens, of whatever party, throughout the past century. The Bill will not ease the major causes of congestion because they are not even logged or known by the Department of Transport, which can be proved by the fact that it could not answer certain questions that I have asked over the past two or three years. The Bill might increase traffic flow marginally on certain routes, but it will do so at great cost. It is largely impractical. It will take considerable resources in person power. It is bureaucratic to an almost unbelievable degree. The statute is complex and will cause a great deal of difficulty, even to lawyers.
The tone of part II of the Bill is authoritarian. It imposes central will on local government and even prevents local authorities from properly protecting the interests of people within their areas. It gives power to central Government to an unprecedented and almost unimaginable degree over matters which are certainly local government matters in London. No Government, of whatever quality, power or party, would seek to impose the measures in the Bill which affect London or Birmingham, Cardiff or Edinburgh.
Part II of the Bill is thoroughly bad and will have to be revised. I hope that it rebounds on its perpetrators.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has paid his tribute to the parliamentary draftsmen. Part I of the Bill is a culmination of the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, with the interdepartmental committee of officials and the establishment of the North committee. We should also remember Judge Frank Blennerhasset, who more than 20 years ago got us moving on some of the issues which are important for cutting casualties.
I hope that part I gets through the House of Lords without serious amendment but possibly with improvements. The Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety amendment, which was not selected, was important. It dealt with retesting after disqualification for drink-driving. I hope that the House of Lords will consider the measure. When this legislation is out of the way, I hope that the House and the Government, together with the voluntary bodies among whom PACTS and the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving, will consider other ways in which we can cut casualties.
It may not be possible to cut minor casualties by a third by the year 2000, but it ought still to be regarded as a heavy responsibility to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries by a third. That will require a combination of vehicle measures, such as pedestrian-friendly car fronts, and a method of dealing with our appalling record of casualties among children, which is caused by a mixture of problems with our road layout, education and parental control and chaperonage of young children. I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act we shall see the same effort put into those measures as has put into polishing up the Bill presented to the House last year.

Mr. Fearn: I have sat quiet for the past two hours, although for the first six hours I was not quiet. My party gives almost wholehearted support to the intentions behind the majority of the measures contained in the first part of the Bill. Some of the clauses could have been in line with the recommendations of the North report. As I said earlier, I am disappointed that Conservative Members were not allowed a free vote on random breath testing. I would also have liked hon. Members to be given the opportunity to debate the measures on re-testing through an extended driving test of drivers disqualified as a result of alcohol-related offences.
On the whole, the measures in part I of the Bill should make our roads much safer. I cannot give the same support to part II. The concept of red routes is misguided and the appointment of a traffic director for London, with such powers as the Bill confers on him, is undemocratic. Local authorities have lost many of their powers under the Government, and the appointment of a traffic director, or one-man quango, weakens their role even further. However, my party will support the Bill in the interests of road safety.
The Committee was a good one and I congratulate the chairman, who was excellent and very expeditious. I am disappointed that the Minister did not accept any of the amendments that I tabled on behalf of the Joint Committee on Mobility of the Disabled and even more disappointed that the two amendments dealing with the disabled which I tabled were not selected today. The needs

of disabled people should not be forgotten. Unfortunately time and time again they are. Disabled people are not catered for adequately on the public transport system. Often the private motor vehicle is their only means of travel. I hope that amendments to ensure that their needs are taken into account will be tabled in the other place.
Red routes are not the answer to London's traffic problems. What is needed is a full Government commitment to resource the whole London transport system, so that it is operated in an integrated way. That is what the Government should be considering, not red routes.

Ms. Ruddock: When we began the debates on the Bill, we said that there was much good in it, and that we would co-operate in Committee and hope to improve some parts of it. We were pleased to support new driving offences and construction and use provisions, all of which were designed to improve safety on our roads. Indeed, we had a pleasant Committee in which there was much consultation and co-operation.
Tonight's debate has been exceedingly disappointing in that a major opportunity to add to road safety and to reduce death and injury due to drink driving has been lost. We regret very much that there was not a free vote on the Government side, because we understand that a recent survey of hon. Members gave clear testimony to the fact that a majority of hon. Members, voting according to conscience, would have supported the new clause on random breath testing.
Some hon. Members seemed to say that it was not worth allocating extra resources to police forces to deal with the problem. I said in the debate, and I repeat, that if these were considered to be 800 murders, they would he a priority for the police. There are relatives who feel that such grave offences have been committed——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not seek to reopen a debate on which the House has reached a conclusion.

Ms. Ruddock: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I conclude that part of my speech by reiterating our regret that an opportunity has been lost.
I said at the outset that part II of the Bill would be very contentious. It has proved to be nothing less. It is significant that hon. Members representing constituencies in London boroughs affected by the pilot scheme are receiving from their constituents grave reservations and protests about the schemes that are to be brought forward under the Bill as so-called priority routes. The traffic director will be nothing less than a traffic dictator. There is no Opposition support for the continuation of traffic jams, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) suggested. We seek a variety of measures to deal with traffic jams. No one wants more than we do a capital city working and moving in a way which it does not do at present.
To introduce piecemeal measures, as in the Bill, and to call them plans for priority routes is no solution to London's problems. It puts at the forefront the priority of those who seek to rush through certain areas rather than the proper priority—the need for goods and for those who live in those areas to have access and movement on the terms which they desire.
There is no substitute for strategic planning. That is not available to us in part II. These debates will not go away. We will return to them again and again until the Government bring forward a Bill that can truly deal with the major problems that the capital city faces and which includes a strategic plan giving priority to the movement of people and goods. That means putting public transport before the private vehicle.
I regret the lost opportunities of tonight. We shall not be pressing the Third Reading to a vote, but we shall, as I said, undoubtedly return to these matters in the interests of democracy and the people of the capital city.

Mr. Chope: I regret that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) introduced a jaundiced note in her remarks because the measure was a good Bill when it arrived for Second Reading and it is even better now, having had detailed consideration in Committee and on Report. It will command the support of the people of London, who are crying out for action to reduce congestion on the roads of the city. The Government have the courage and commitment to do something about that.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). Indeed, we could call them the Goodhart routes. Perhaps an amendment to that effect will be introduced in another place. This is a good Bill and I thank hon. Members who participated in debating it. I hope that it will be dealt with speedily in the other place so that it may soon reach the statute book.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Lomé Convention

[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 8127/90 on conclusion of the Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention, 4590/90 on transitional measures between the Third and Fourth Lomé Conventions, 5197/90 on the financing and administration of Community aid under the Fourth Lomé Convention, 6205/90 on the balance sheets and accounts of the European Development Funds for 1989 and 6704/90 on the operation of the STABEX system in 1989.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mrs. Lynda Chalker.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Order Paper states that this instrument is subject to the qualification:
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet completed its consideration of the Instrument.
That consideration was completed this afternoon. We have made a report to the House. Both the report and the two memoranda from the Department are available in the Vote Office to help the House to complete its consideration of the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that information and advice.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
The fourth ACP-EEC convention, or Lomé IV as it is commonly known, was signed on 15 December 1989. The convention governs development and trade relations between the Community and 69 developing countries described as the African Caribbean and Pacific, or ACP, group of developing countries, which includes 33 of the 43 least developed nations as defined by the United Nations.
The draft Order in Council to which the motion refers allows the convention's provisions to be effected in United Kingdom law. This in turn opens the way for ratification of the convention by the United Kingdom. The convention takes force when ratified by all EC member states and two thirds of the ACP countries, and concluded by the Community.
This debate provides an opportunity to consider other Community documents, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for his point of order. These are the internal financing agreement, 5197/90, to which I shall return, the accounts of the European development fund, 6205/90, a report on the question of STABEX, 6704/90, the transitional measures, 4590/90, bridging the gap between the third and fourth conventions and conclusion by the Community of the fourth convention, 8127/90.
Because of the wide scope of Lomé and the limited time available, I shall not address the Community's other aid instruments outside Lomé, such as programmes for Asia and Latin America and the Mediterranean, or food or emergency aid. That would be outside the debate. But I wish to comment further on one of the other Community documents to which I referred. The draft Order in Council


specifying the Lomé convention followed established practice by also specifying the internal financing agreement, document 5197.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, South has said, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments met today and reported that it considers that no useful purpose is served by specification of the agreement. The Joint Committee's report draws this to the special attention of both Houses. It is important to comment on that.
I agree with the Joint Committee that this specification is not legally essential. However, politically, this specification is an appropriate method of bringing the agreement before the House in the context of a debate on the whole series of instruments relating to the Lomé convention. This financial commitment, arising from our obligations under the convention, will this year consume 9 per cent. of my total aid budget. I needed to comment on that, and the easiest way to do so was to tag it with the other documents to be discussed.
Having been closely involved in the negotiations, I am especially pleased to present the order to the House. There is much to commend in the treaty, which builds on its predecessors. The convention is the cornerstone of the European Community's relationship with the developing world. The provisions cover a wide range of development instruments and the convention's scope is unique. The high degree of commitment is demonstrated by the improvements contained in Lomé IV.
Lomé represents a partnership between the EC and the developing world, and brings the expertise and resources of the Community and member states to bear on agreed development goals. Under Lomé IV, there are some changes in the structure and, to an extent, to the scope of the convention. Those changes will make it even more effective. The structural changes are in the duration and membership of the convention. Where previous treaties covered five-year periods, Lomé IV runs for 10 years. Increasing the duration to 10 years reflects the Community's commitment to the aims of Lomé and our will to provide a stable framework for all parties involved. Cutting the frequency of full-scale negotiations will better enable us all to focus effort on the tasks involved in implementing Lomé IV.
Within this time period, the money for the financial instruments contained in the convention will be provided under two separate five-year European development funds or EDFs. EDF VII covers the first five years. EDF VIII will be negotiated in 1994. This will also provide an opportunity to review the aid provisions of the Convention at the halfway stage.
I welcome the addition of Haiti and the Dominican Republic to the membership of the convention, but in agreeing to this, the United Kingdom insisted, initially with little support but later with the full agreement of our partners, that traditional sugar and banana interests of the Commonwealth Caribbean should not be put at risk by this enlargement.

Mr. John P. Smith: Is the Minister concerned at the apparent attempts by the Dominican Republic to export large quantities of bananas to the United Kingdom? That is contrary to the existing Lomé convention.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall deal with that in winding up. We are carefully watching what is going on, and I know that

the hon. Gentleman takes a special interest in the matter. As he knows from our discussions on the matter, I have fought hard to renew the protection provided for our traditional banana suppliers by earlier Lomé conventions, and I do not intend to give up now.
As the House may know, Namibia signed the treaty on 20 December last year. I know that the House shares my pleasure at that accession. I hope that the Community will help Namibia through the testing early stages of independence and democracy.
There are also important extensions to the scope of the convention. These include a new emphasis on the environment, on health and population planning, on participatory democracy and, above all, on human rights. We pressed hard on all these issues during the negotiations. I shall discuss these further after I have described the technical and financial aspects of the treaty.
The financial package for the next five years is covered by EDF VII, which was, as usual, settled outside the Community's budget procedures. There will be 10·8 billion ecu, or £7·5 billion, available for development assistance. Up to 1·2 billion ecu, or £0·84 billion may be added from the European investment bank's own resources. Those figures represent together a 46 per cent. increase compared with EDF VI. The British share of contributions to the 10·8 billion ecu EDF VII is fixed at 16·37 per cent. of the total. That amounts to 1·8 billion ecu. In sterling, our commitment is about £1·3 billion but the precise figure will depend on the exchange rate prevailing at the time that the funds are drawn down.
This is our largest ever single aid commitment and will represent an important part of the United Kingdom's total aid effort, which for 1991–92 will amount to some £1·9 billion. The funds will be spent and drawn down from the United Kingdom aid programme over a period of years as projects and programmes are implemented.
A particular feature of this convention is that 1·15 billion ecu has been earmarked from EDF VII to provide direct financial support for structural adjustment measures. This is to be used to support countries undertaking agreed economic reform programmes. In this way, the Community aid channel can lend its considerable weight to the work of the international financial institutions and the bilateral donors, including the member states, in this field. This will include in particular the special programme of assistance to debt-distressed low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa; an effort co-ordinated by the World bank, to which we are giving very active bilateral support.
The Government believe that, if developing countries are to make sustainable economic and social progress, they need to participate as fully as possible in the world economy. That means encouraging trade, investment and private sector development. We therefore pressed hard during the internal EC negotiations for provisions which enable support to be given to the promotion of private sector activity. We believe that a healthy private sector is essential for the economic progress of all the ACP states. There, the role of the EIB is important, as its tasks include indentifying and channelling funds to efficient private sector activities.
It is, of course, of paramount importance that the very substantial resources involved are used effectively. The Commission and the EIB manage the funds in close collaboration with representatives of the member states in the EDF committee which approves all significant


spending proposals. EDF VIII in the Commission applies policies and criteria shaped by the discussions of the EDF committee and developed by the Commission. The Development Council of EC Ministers meets twice a year to decide on overall policy issues. The joint ACP-EC Council of Ministers provides a forum for policy dialogue between Ministers of the EC and the developing world.
Lomé IV looks to bolster the trade concessions enjoyed by the ACP states. The new convention retains all the generous provisions of its predecessor for ACP access to the EC market. Some further improvements have proved possible, and the United Kingdom, with other like-minded member states, pressed very hard indeed for those advances.
All ACP industrial products other than rum are already admitted duty-free. The changes to the rules of origin, which define what counts as an ACP product, will provide greater access for ACP goods. Such technical changes hardly make thrilling headlines, but they serve to stimulate processing and manufacturing industries, and help diversify the economies of ACP states. Some agricultural products are still covered by tariff or quota restrictions. Many of these are dismantled or reduced by the new convention. Examples are molasses and rice, on which the access restrictions are reduced, and the inclusion of a number of horticultural products previously outside the benefits of the convention.
Two agricultural projects of major importance are sugar and bananas, which has already been mentioned. The sugar protocol of Lomé IV maintains the position of the separate agreement, which was not renegotiated in 1989. As I said, the United Kingdom fought hard to ensure that the new banana protocol maintained preferential access. We are awaiting proposals from the Commission for the arrangements to apply to bananas in the single market, after 1992. We shall stand by our commitments, as well as taking account of consumer interests, trade policy considerations and the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market.
In extending the scope of the convention, I attach special importance to the human rights provisions. For the first time in Lomé, and among the objectives and principles of the convention, is an explicit statement of the link between development and respect for human rights. I warmly commend this linkage to the House. It will be backed up by the provision of funds to activities aimed at fostering and nurturing good human rights practices. This is not a question of aid donors imposing their will on recipients. It is a partnership, in which both sides recognise what is needed for sustainable development. The convention allows us to promote human rights and participatory development, through the funding of specific projects—for example, by strengthening public administration.
I am pleased that the EDF funds will now be allocated to many more non-governmental and decentralised groups in the ACP countries. Assistance channelled in this way can encourage the growth of greater participation in society, and of more pluralism. These actions will also exemplify our desire to see ACP-EC partnerships established at all levels, and not merely between Government representatives and Commission staff.
I should also like to mention the associated Community provisions for aid to member states' dependent territories. The overseas countries and territories, as they are known, will enjoy the same general trade regime as the ACP countries. Where provisions differ, it is right that they are more generous towards our dependencies. In parallel with EDF VII, over the next five years they will be allocated 140 million ecu of aid, a 40 per cent. increase over Lomé III, supplemented by 25 million ecu from the EIB's own resources.
The Lomé convention is the cornerstone of Community relations with the developing world. It is the product of a major effort of discussion and negotiation between the ACP and the Community. To establish an effective aid and trade relationship between the Twelve and such a diverse group of 69 ACP states, is, as I know from many hours of detailed work, no easy task.
The prospects of the ACP states can only be enhanced by the kind of arrangement contained in Lomé IV—liberal trading provisions offering real opportunities for ACP states, and the largest single Community aid programme. For their part, the Government will continue to work hard and constructively to make Lomé work well.
I believe that Lomé IV represents an important advance in the Community's relationship with the developing world, and I am confident that the House will share my view.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The fourth Lomé convention was negotiated at a critical time. It was concluded at the end of a lost decade for development within the African, Caribbean and Pacific and other developing countries, and at the beginning of a decade which will see great change. The completion of the single market, the implementation of any Uruguay round agreement and the development of central and eastern Europe will have profound effects on the European Community and on our relations with ACP countries.
In assessing the Lomé IV convention, we must not only compare it with its predecessor, Lomé III, but measure it against the needs of ACP countries in a new international environment. It must also be assessed according to the original spirit of Lomé—the spirit of innovation of 1973, when the first contractual partnership was entered into between north and south, explicitly recognising the interlinking of air and trade.
As the Minister made clear, compared with Lomé III, Lomé IV contains some significant improvements. The emphasis on the environment and human rights and the commitment to pay earlier and greater attention to the needs of women are much welcomed.
The convention talks of "decentralised co-operation", which should bring non-governmental groups into the process of development in ACP countries. The decision that most Lomé funds will now be given as aid, not grants, is eminently sensible, given the ACP debt burden. At least this Lomé convention mentions the debt crisis. Both STABEX and SYSMIN have been considerably improved; strict rules of origin have been slightly relaxed, new products have been added, falling exports to non-EC countries will be taken into account and their funds have been increased. Of course, those changes must still be implemented effectively, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what work has been done in that respect.
Lomé funds are disbursed very slowly. Little more than 20 per cent. of the Lomé III budget had been spent at the end of its five-year duration in 1989. Lomé IV includes new areas of co-operation, but DG VIII has no new staff to implement them. Can the Minister tell us how local communities who were never really consulted in the drawing up of the convention will be encouraged to participate in its implementation, and whether respect for human rights will be used only to hold up aid in cases of gross abuse, or will it be brought to the fore in programming for all countries?
Doubling the life of the convention with the renewal of the financial protocol in five years ensures continuity and guarantees Europe's long-term commitment to the ACP countries. At least the amount of money available for those five years has increased in real terms in comparison with Lomé III. The real increase of 20 per cent. to 12 million ecu is considerably more than the United Kingdom Government's negotiating proposal of 10 million ecu. Fortunately, other member states prevented the Lomé budget from going the way of the UK suggestion; but, when we look at the desperate economic straits in which many ACP countries find themselves, we must ask again, "Is this enough?".
The 1980s saw economic decline and profound human suffering across much of the developing world. In sub-Saharan Africa, average incomes fell last year for the 12th year in a row. With ACP countries relying on non-oil commodities for 60 per cent. of their exports, and prices of those commodities at all-time lows, the main cause of the economic setback is clear: added to the trade crisis is the debt crisis, and the result is that citizens of ACP countries are now threatened with another lost decade.
We need an imaginative response from both north and south in the Lomé partnership, based on a generous commitment by the EC. In the words of the ACP negotiators:
The fourth convention should be seen as a major instrument in arresting and reversing the economic crisis. in ACP states.
But, in financial terms, the new agreement gives no more per person than the previous one.
The ACP states themselves requested 15·5 million ecu for Lomé IV, but the Commission imposed its own last-minute offer, with no room for negotiation. That "take it or leave it" approach to the financial package sadly indicates a lack of genuine dialogue throughout the Lomé IV negotiations. The first Lomé convention was unique in its emphasis on partnership between north and south, but in these nogotiations the EC Commission clearly dictated the pace.
Last week, we heard that the Lomé ideal of partnership had been extended to the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. Under the new structural adjustment fund of Lomé IV, World bank conditionality is replacing dialogue between the EC and the ACP. When quick disbursing aid for import support was first introduced in 1987, the Commission promised that it would develop a distinctive European policy on structural adjustment.
According to article 244 of Lomé IV, social conditions culture and regional differences would all be taken into account. Food security, environmental protection and other developmental objectives would be supported and
the right of ACP states to determine the direction of their development strategies and priorities shall be recognised and respected".

Yet only last week, the Commission announced that almost all the 1 million ecu structural adjustment fund would be handed over to the World bank's special assistance programme for sub-Saharan Africa. Countries without IMF or World bank programmes will not even be eligible for assistance. The ACP countries were not even consulted. That calls into question the whole basis of the Lomé partnership. How can article 244 possibly he implemented now?
The preamble to the first Lomé convention talked of changing the north-south relations that were hampering development, and of promoting a
new, more just, and more balanced world order.
The ideal—that huge gaps in wealth and power could be transcended by a new north-south partnership based on mutual respect—was trail-blazing at the time. That ideal was conspicuously absent, however from the Lomé IV negotiations. There have been improvements, but no major innovations, since Lomé began. As the EC-NGO liaison committee put it,
The spirit of Lomé is lost.
Lomé IV bans the export of hazardous and nuclear waste from EC countries, and we welcome that, but a real model of north-south co-operation would surely include an agreement on the activities of all multinationals in developing countries. It would tackle the debt crisis and the international trade regime. Lomé IV unfortunately does not match that task.
I will try to demonstrate that by considering the trade provisions of Lomé IV—in financial terms, 20 times more important to the ACP countries than aid. The increased concessions that the Minister described sound impressive, but let us put them into perspective. Some 75 per cent. of ACP exports are to the EC, so we are a vital trading partner. Only 10 per cent. of the exports receive preferential treatment under Lomé, and even those goods are still subject to many restrictions.
Most of the restrictions—particularly on sugar, beef and other essential export—survived the Lomé IV negotiations intact. It is true that the beef quota was increased from 30,000 to 39,000 tonnes per year, but to put that, too, into perspective, that would do no more than supply Sunday lunches in a couple of major cities. The tomato quota, fixed at 2,000 tonnes, is equivalent to about three hours' worth of EC consumption. Increased quotas for milk, cheese and curd sound fine, but in fact less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of EC imports of those products come from ACP countries. They are simply not significant ACP exports.
The changes will not provide the secure market access needed to encourage investment in the ACP. The EC rejected ACP requests for a special programme to improve the processing, marketing, distribution and transport of commodities. The simple industrial products that the ACP countries can most easily produce continue to be blocked by strict rules on value added, rules of origin and the exclusion of "simple assembly" manufactured goods.
Lomé trade preferences have not been able to prevent the increasing marginalisation of ACP goods in EC imports over the past decade. Lomé certainly does not address the changes that can be expected in world trade over the next decade. For example, 1992 and the single market are fast approaching. There is no doubt that exports from some of the poorest ACP countries will be squeezed by the single market even if exports in developing countries benefit. Fifty thousand banana workers in the


Windward Islands, and many more workers in the south Wales docks, will risk losing their livelihood if the preferential access given to their bananas disappears.

Mr. John P. Smith: Does my hon. Friend share my deep concern that Geest, this country's largest importer of bananas—currently importing two thirds of all the bananas consumed here—is contemplating moving from Barry, which is on the west of the United Kingdom, to the south of England? Does that not amount to a vote of no confidence in the maintenance of supplies from the Windward Islands?

Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Recently, he and I visited Geest's headquarters at Barry docks in my hon. Friend's constituency, when the concern of management and unions was made very clear to us. That source of employment at Barry docks is vital to the employment prospects of south Wales as a whole, which in the past 10 years has suffered very severely as a result of Government policies. Clearly, this is a matter of great concern to the whole of south Wales and, in particular, to my hon. Friend.
The arrival of 1992, the Gulf crisis, changing relations between the EC and eastern Europe, and the Uruguay round, may all have severe effects on ACP trade. The EC should be ready with structural measures to mitigate those effects. Such measures are not covered in Lomé IV, but I hope that action can still be taken to secure them before Lomé V.
Proposals tabled in the Uruguay round will erode trade preferences offered under Lomé in respect of ACP exports. For example, according to an UNCTAD study published last July, the EC-Uruguay offer on liberalisation of trade in tropical products would cut imports from sub-Saharan Africa by about $120 million, with trade being diverted to Latin America and the industrialised countries. Worse, the Uruguay round proposals present a threat which goes to the heart of ACP development, and directly contradicts Lomé principles.
The United States and the Economic Community are moving towards a deal on agriculture that would require the Governments of all developing countries to reduce their support for food producers. Protecting farmers leads to surplus and food mountains in the Economic Community, but in developing countries it can make the crucial difference between having enough to eat and going hungry.
Governments need to protect their farmers from food dumping and to encourage agricultural investment. With 29 million people in 25 sub-Saharan countries starving right now, surely no one can fail to see the importance of encouraging food security. How can the Economic Community talk in Lomé conventions of improving food security in ACP countries, and then support GATT proposals which would outlaw the very Government measures needed to achieve that security?
Instead of making a mockery of its own proclamations of concern, the Economic Community should observe the Uruguay round mandate, which recognises the right of developing countries to special and differential treatment. It should commit itself to GATT rules that outlaw dumping and, as the Common Agricultural Policy reform debate intensifies yet again, should seek to improve the

very ACP interests of which it talks so earnestly in the Lomé convention. Unless the Economic Community takes on board those wider economic issues, Lomé cannot possibly pretend to be the catalyst for re-ordering north-south relations.
At last, proposals to write off debt owed by ACP to the Economic Community under Lomé are being discussed, but still the Community opts out of taking a stronger role on international debt initiatives. It has not even established a joint framework for bilateral debt reduction. Commissioner Marin's proposal to cancel Lomé debts—about 1 per cent. of total ACP debt—is modest but important. It is a logical extension of the decision to switch to grants in Lomé IV and of the bilateral action of member Governments. Lomé IV commits the Economic Community. to
support ACP efforts to reverse the outflow of capital
and
contribute to the attenuation of debt burden.
This is a good place to start.
What position do the Government take? The Minister will probably say that the matter was discussed, has been referred and will be discussed again, just as she said that in reply to several parliamentary questions last year. It is shameful that hon. Members have to rely on the grapevine which operates between Brussels and London, often via other cities and organisations, to discover that the Government have been opposing Commissioner Marin's proposals to write off debts owed by the ACP.
Will the Minister provide details today of every vote—every nod and shake of the head—by United Kingdom Ministers and officials, on 5 November at the Development Council, on 3 to 6 December and 18 December at the General Affairs Council, and on 28 January at ECOFIN? If the Government's policy is defensible, there should be nothing to hide.
That is just one example of the lack of information and accountability from which all EC development policies suffer. We should not only debate the Lomé convention in Parliament once every five years—we should also debate the other half of EC aid to non-ACP countries. We should consider the reforms of food aid that are so desperately needed, the absurdly small amounts of aid which go to Asia, where the majority of the world's poor live, the need to improve monitoring and evaluation and to focus EC aid on the poor—a need made all too clear by the Court of Auditors report of 12 December 1990 on EC aid to Bangladesh. The report concluded:
The allocation of more than half a billion ECU between 1976 and 1988 to Bangladesh has largely failed to achieve the general Community aid objective of improving the conditions of the least favoured inhabitants of developing countries.
The House will want to know as much as I do what action has been taken on that.
Clearly, the spirit of all EC aid—not only Lomé—needs to be revived. There is growing incompatibility between EC objectives relating to aid, trade, agriculture, central and eastern Europe, and the single market. Within Lomé IV, articles which give priority to long-term, self-reliant development compete with sections on short-term structural adjustment. The Lomé partnership is collapsing back into dominance and dependence.
The spirit of Lomé demands imagination and political will. The ACP states have seen the Community display those qualities in taking the lead in the reconstruction of central and eastern Europe. As a Senegalese delegate said during the Lomé negotiations, the Community has already


promised $60 per head in aid to Poland and Hungary over the next two years, but will provide only $9 for each ACP citizen over the five yers of Lomé IV. The exact levels and terms of that aid may be disputed, but the political point is clear: Europe must reinvigorate and restate its commitment to development in the south.
Lomé IV has been described as the best that can be achieved in the present tight circumstances. That analysis may well be right, but it is no reason to be complacent. The challenge for both the EC and the ACP is to rebuild the spirit of co-operation between north and south to transform the very circumstances which constrained our co-operation and their long-term sustainable development.

Mr. Bowen Wells: There is much to be welcomed in the Lomé IV agreement. I particularly want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the very constructive role that she played in negotiating and enhancing it. All the parties to the agreement, including the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), have always had many misgivings about some parts of it. We all want the agreement to succeed, to be more dynamic, imaginative and helpful to the poorest countries with which the EC has traditionally been associated for many centuries. It is for those reasons that we want to improve the agreement.
I believe that many of the suggestions given to the House by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley are worthy of much greater and deeper study and implementation. The EC's 40 per cent. increase on the last Lomé III agreement is not enough but it is nonetheless an improvement, but before the EC pats itself on the back for that, I remind the House that the Community, through subsidisation of agriculture, does the third world much harm. It reduces world prices for commodities such as sugar, which could be produced in the third world.
When 3 million tonnes of sugar are put on to the world market, that reduces the world price of sugar, and thus the incomes for many people in the third world. The same is true of palm oil. When we look around in the spring and see the yellow fields of rape seed oil throughout Europe, we know that that is due to subsidies and that the people who will suffer for it are those in the poor countries that produce palm oil. There are many other such examples where the CAP severely undermines the trading ability of third world countries.
We could improve the European development fund and its administration in two sectors: first, the co-ordination of the EC's efforts with its 12 member countries and their own bilateral programme; secondly, co-ordination with other international aid organisations. Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, I welcome the adherence to the structural adjustment policies of the international monetary fund and the World bank, but they need to be modified and rethought. I am cynical about adjustment policies because, very often, they simply allow payment for imports for which they cannnot otherwise obtain foreign exchange. That does not promote wealth-creating development in those countries—it is simply a form of emergency aid. That does not help the changes necessary to help those countries overcome their economic difficulties.
There are problems with structural adjustment policies, but they present a means by which to co-ordinate the efforts of the EC, the World bank, the IMF and bilateral programmes. Therefore, I welcome the allocation of a significant sum of money for that purpose. But there is also major concern about the way in which EC delegates in the various ACP countries fail even to make inquiries about the way in which other countries, which have had bilateral programmes for many years, construct their aid. There is little assessment within the EC of the economic needs and how economies can be helped to grow. Therefore, the combination of efforts and talents that we in the EC, through bilateral and European economic aid, can co-ordinate with the private sector to enhance the development of those countries.
Time and again, I have visited countries and asked the European delegate what he knows about the programmes of the other 12 member states—the answer is often, very little indeed. I am sure that that could be easily rectified and I hope that, through its new organisation, the Community will pay it more attention. That would provide benefits at no additional cost and would aid those countries in a more constructive and imaginative way.
Another concern about Lomé IV is that there continues to be a major gap in ACP-EEC trade, despite all the apparently generous trade concessions that were given in that agreement, as in Lomé I, II and III. They are not taken advantage of by our ACP partners, and we must ask why. The principal reason is the rules of origin, although we welcome the fact that we have reduced the input necessary to qualify for tariff-free import into the European Community from 60 per cent. to 45 per cent. of the product produced by the exporting country.
However, I doubt whether even that will enable those countries to take advantage of the concessions. I refer to the smaller states—especially the island states—where much of the product is imported and only the labour is added. That means that few of the products will qualify for the tariff-free import into the Community. We must improve that, to enable those countries to make use of their most valuable and largest resource—their people's energy and ability to add value to a product which does not qualify for inclusion under the rules—even if the countries could understand the rules of origin which apply to many products.
One way to overcome the problem is to encourage wealth-creating investment from our private sector into those countries. A controversial proposition—although it is an idea in which I have always believed—is that, if those countries are exporting products to sophisticated western markets, they need to be able to benefit from the marketing profits made in Britain. In that way, they will benefit more than they do merely as producers and exporters.
External investment by the developed world will give the developed world a greater interest in ensuring that those economies work well. Equally, investment by the developing countries in the marketing sector of the developed world will give them an insight into what is required and into the standards needed successfully to market their products and give them a greater share in the profits from their efforts. In that way, we can begin to create a world that will enable them to benefit from the Lomé IV agreement. It is a good agreement, but it could be a good deal better.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I will concentrate my remarks on the technicalities of the order because, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I brought to the attention of the House the fact that the Joint Committee had reported the order. In the ordinary course of events, precautions are taken so that the Joint Committee has the opportunity to complete its examination of an order, under the terms of the Standing Orders of the House, which involves asking the relevant Department for a memorandum or memoranda, depending on the scale of our investigations. On this occasion, the arrangements appear to have fallen down.
I understand that the Government Whips, through the usual channels, offered not to move the order tonight, so that we could make a more leisurely report. However, I did not feel that that was right, because the Committee was able to finish its consideration and we were able to put our report in the Vote Office to enable hon. Members to take copies if they wanted. The Minister was able to make a comment on our observations.
I want to put on record our concern within our range of duties of reporting to the House about the unusual use of powers and the vires of orders. An important issue is involved. The Joint Committee is the only scrutiny Committee for the huge outpouring of statutory instruments by which the majority of legislative powers are applied to the United Kingdom and related organisations, such as those in the order.
We have no quarrel with the first item in the schedule to the order—the fourth ACP-EEC convention of Lomé. We are concerned with the second item in the schedule—the
Internal Agreement on the Financing and Administration of Community Aid".
Both agreements are designated as treaties. When we asked the Overseas Development Administration for the reason why the internal financing agreement was designated as a treaty, it gave only one reason, which was not the reason that the Minister gave—it was politically a method of bringing the matter before the House.
The Overseas Development Administration said that it was a means of bringing the treaty under section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972, and no other reason was given. It enables
expenses incurred under or by virtue of the Treaties or this Act by any Minister of the Crown or government department
to be paid. That is an unusual way in which to describe payments to the 7th European development fund. As that is an unusual use of ministerial powers—I will come to the qualification that the Committee made—we sought to report the matter to the House. It is an important precedent.
There is much talk of a European central bank. It would be wrong if the Minister used the powers under the European Communities Act 1972 to designate a treaty as a means of transferring funds to a European central bank. I hope that that bank never comes into existence, and I believe that it would have little merit. However, the Committee is not considering that. It is considering the way in which Ministers operate. We felt that the procedure set a principle that should not be followed.
In its memorandum, which we attached to our report, the Overseas Development Administration points out that it did not need the powers to bring the internal financing

agreement under section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 to authorise payments, because it already has power under section 1 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. With that power to make payments to the development fund, it simply was not necessary to use the other powers. As our memorandum states, that seems to destroy the ODA's case for designating the treaty as a Community treaty. We therefore felt that the matter was of sufficient general importance to warrant being brought to the attention of the House.
We have the right to report something to the House on the basis of an unusual use of powers. I believe that the matter falls under that heading. However, our adviser suggested that, as the power had been used on three previous occasions, this could not be regarded as an unusual use of powers. However, that is a matter of debate. On the three previous occasions when the powers were used in that way—in 1975, 1979 and 1985—I was not the Committee Chairman. They must have crept by during one of the Committee's weak moments.
I place the Committee's concern on record, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that she will find some other way of bringing these important treaty arrangements to the attention of the House. I do not deny their importance or the valid criticisms made of them by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). This is not a satisfactory way of using unnecessary powers to incorporate something into the schedule of a statutory instrument. It would be at least as good to use the record of the proceedings of this place to explain the internal workings, instead of using what appears to be an abuse of the Minister's powers against which our Committee was established to safeguard.

Mr. John Battle: On every occasion that the Lomé convention has been up for renewal since it was first signed in 1976, the situation facing the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries has proved to be bleaker in terms of development. My main job between 1979 and 1983 was to monitor the implementation of the Lomé convention. The task now facing the convention and the burden that is must bear is much greater than it has ever been. The debt burdens have increased, prices for key exports have been falling and there has been an increasingly unfavourable imbalance in trade with the European Community.
The fourth Lomé convention was signed in December 1989 and at last included a chapter on the environment. However, it took a year to negotiate between the member states and the 68 ACP countries. Although it will last for 10 years, as the Minister explained its financial package will be split and renegotiated after five years. We must put pressure on the convention now to ensure that it fulfils some of its original intentions. Within the context of the fourth Lomé convention, I want to refer, as a case study, to Namibia—the newest ACP member.
At the time of negotiating membership of the ACP, the focus was on Namibian beef. Although Namibia must still sort out who benefits internally from the beef quota, I want to draw the attention of the House to the current key issue—that of fishing.
On 11 March, Namibia will begin negotiating with the Community for an agreement on EC access to fishing. In the debate on Second Reading of the Namibia Bill, the Minister for Overseas Development acknowledged:
Namibia's fisheries programme is of great importance because it will provide a major source of income, as long as the fish are not stolen away … the area will then need the policing that it has not enjoyed until now. The income that Namibia will derive from that sector will be enhanced once a fisheries agreement is reached with the European Community."—[Official Report, 5 February 1991; vol. 186 c. 256.]
While I welcome that statement, the problem is that Namibia's fishery resources have been plundered by illegal overfishing in both the in-shore waters and off-shore. An estimated minimum of 300,000 tonnes of the offshore hake resources are taken by overseas fleets, which amounts to a not insubstantial amount in monetary terms. There have recently been local accounts of Spanish boats plundering those resources. When approached by the coastguard patrols, they have fled into Angolan territorial waters, taking with them 500 tonnes of hake fillets.
However, there is not only a problem with illegal plundering activities; there is also a problem of rebuilding the fish stocks that have been depleted under South African occupation. Furthermore, there is the question of the development of an integrated industry, which involves both the offshore and inshore fishing industries through the development of an indigenous fleet. If Namibian fish stocks were allowed to recover, there would be sufficient to enable the indigenous fleet to work in harmony and co-operation with the European Community fleet.
However, that objective might not fit so neatly with the current European Community objective, because the point of the European Community's fisheries agreement: has been to secure access for EC fisheries fleets to fishing grounds in ACP countries. In other words, the developmental objectives have tended to play a secondary role and to take a back seat.
Despite the reluctant concessions that have been built in with financial compensation in return for EC access, the pattern has been one of dominance rather than of genuine mutual integration for the purpose of development. In other words, the key aim of the EC has been to secure long-term access to internal fishing grounds for EC fleets. However, if that objective is to be faithful to the spirit and purpose of the original Lomé convention, it should be blended with the need for Namibia to develop its own fishing industry in a spirit of genuine partnership and co-operation.
I hope that the Government will support Namibia's need for immediate effective conservation measures that will allow full stock recovery. That may mean minimal or no legal access to Namibian waters for the rest of this year. It will certainly mean backing Namibia's method of stock conservation through the establishment of low total allowable catches.
There will be a need to assist Namibia's ability to monitor and control fishing activities in its own economic exclusion zone, as the Minister acknowledged in the debate on the Namibia Bill. There is also a need to maximise local processing and the development of an indigenous fleet, which would mean the transfer of technological resources and the provision of capital goods, going beyond mere financial assistance.
However, it is also politically important to put pressure on South Africa to withdraw from its continued illegal

occupation of Walvis bay, which is Namibia's only deep-water port. Namibia needs its main port. I hope that the Government will recognise the need for an early integration of Walvis bay into Namibia, and that the Minister will confirm that that will take place before the end of this year, and that it will include the 12 islands.
In conclusion, to ensure that positive support to the newest member of the ACP—and in the spirit of the Minister's backing for Namibia's entry into membership of the Commonwealth, which was welcomed on 5 February—we need to ensure that there will be an increase in the allocation of overall resources that will take account of Namibia's membership. Or will Namibia be effectively locked out from that five-year budget and depend upon waiting for EDF VIII to arrive later, when it is renegotiated?
Some have spoken in the past of the lost spirit of Lomé. It is true that the convention could be described as a story of missed opportunities to change the unjust balance of relationships between the north and south worlds, which has undermined development in the past. Attempts have been made to establish rules that would have helped to establish what was referred to in the preamble to the Lomé convention as
a new more just and more balanced world order.
But in practice, the EC has tended to sign and then later undermine the realities of the agreement. For example, in the past, the European Community countries have used the loopholes in the international law of the sea to protect their fishing markets, rather than give the ACP fisheries fair treatment.
Lomé set out a model for new relations between rich and poor countries. Tonight, the Minister referred to it as the cornerstone. The European Community needs radically to improve the performance of the Lomé convention in Africa. It could start by treating the Namibians as real partners in the fisheries negotiations. The Minister spoke of the testing early stages of independence and democracy for Namibia and of the liberal trading opportunities for the ACP. I hope that the British Government's and her voice will be heard when those negotiations open in March as it is a vital, practical test of the future effectiveness of the Lomé convention.

Mr. Mike Watson: I cannot share the Minister's enthusiasm for the fourth Lomé convention. I recognise that parts of it are welcome, but when it was finally agreed in December 1989 after more than a year of negotiations, there was a feeling, particularly in the European Parliament, that the negotiations had been rather half-hearted. The way in which they progressed leads one to agree with that view.
The manner in which the EC countries approached the negotiations illustrated a thinly veiled scepticism about the problems and needs articulated by the African, Caribbean and Pacific states. It seems that the EC countries effectively put negotiating the new agreement on the backburner. They were more concerned with their own economic restructuring and intent on overcoming the many difficulties in completing the internal market for 1992. There were the further distractions of the GATT Uruguay round talks and the needs—which, I acknowledge, were legitimate—of the emergent democracies of eastern and central Europe.
It seems that many EC member states give higher priority to bilateral aid than to increased co-operation at EC level. In part at least, it is possible that that is due to the unconvincing nature of the first three Lomé conventions and their failure significantly to alter the north-south balance in terms of development.
As I said, I welcome some aspects of the new agreement. In particular, the link between development and human rights and the commitment to the environment and the needs of women are welcome. However, it has to be said that they are offset by shortcomings, especially on trade, where the concessions made by the EC countries fell far below what the ACP group sought. One instance of that is that the ACP countries' request for an increase of 30,000 tonnes of husk rice. They received an increase of only some 3,000 tonnes.
The agreement also fails to provide the ACP with a preferential trading regime for agricultural products that would allow many ACP exporters to invest in substantial production and distribution units or replace expensive subsidised EC products with competitive ACP products. Equally important, no provisions were made to stop EC dumping on ACP markets where it is a disincentive to local production.
On the crucial matter of debt, the agreement contains only a miserable few measures. They aim to avoid a worsening of ACP debt under the new convention and to give technical assistance for debt management and capital flows. But the EC refused initially to include the debt issue in the negotiations on the new convention. That ignored the fact that most ACP debt is owed to EC Governments and to private banks in the Community. However, Lomé IV contains no European commitment to take concerted action in international establishments or to establish an overall framework for bilateral arrangements that could assist the ACP in restoring their capacity to service their debt. Even the small debt to the Community was not written off.
Negotiations on Lomé IV failed to get to grips with the fundamental problem of previous conventions—the disappointing level of implementation and the poor results which emanated from it. It seems inconceivable that only 20 per cent. of the funds of Lomé III were spent during its five-year duration. That shows an endemic problem in the relationship between north and south. The EC countries still do not seem to have grasped the scale of the structural problems facing ACP countries, particularly in Africa, where there are desperate problems.
The serious deterioration of circumstances in ACP countries since the Lomé conventions began in the mid-1970s is also revealed. There was a fall of 64 per cent. in purchasing power of the convention's signatories in the five years of Lomé III alone. Lomé IV failed to address that problem also. The distribution of the resources and wealth produced in the developed world must be complemented by maximising the contribution which can be made by the underdeveloped world, if given the chance. Until debt cancellation and the real encouragement of preferential trade agreements are pursued by the EC with conviction, something which has not been shown in the negotiations or in the final document of Lomé IV, the

status of Lomé will be further downgraded so that it becomes perhaps just one donor among others. Surely the ACP countries deserve better.

Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who chairs the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, might have been able to join us again, but perhaps I had better put these remarks on the record. What he said was important, following the consideration of the documents by the Committee.
I want to assure the hon. Member, as I think he recognises, that in tagging the document on the internal financing agreement on to the debate, I do not believe that we have set a precedent in any way. As I said in the early part of my opening speech, I had intended this to be a belt and braces exercise, to make sure that, when the House discussed Lomé IV, hon. Members would have full knowledge of all its aspects.
The worry of the hon. Gentleman about a transfer of moneys to a putative central bank would be more realistic if I had hidden my intention. My aim was exactly the opposite—to get everything on the record and to discuss everything together. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has rejoined us, will read in Hansard my first remarks in reply to the debate.
In order to permit Lomé IV to become operational, member states must ratify both the Lomé convention and the internal financing agreement. It is for us to determine how in the United Kingdom we should do that. That is why I recommended to Parliament the procedure for full consideration of all the elements making up the convention.
Lomé is unique. The member states and the European Community are partners to the convention, whereas only the member states contribute to its funding by virtue of the internal financing agreement. The agreement is a separate treaty and could, of course, have been laid alone before the House to satisfy the Ponsonby rule, but that would have deprived the House of the opportunity to consider the internal financing agreement in its proper context and would have denied the intrinsic link between it and the Lomé convention. We adopted the unusual course of bringing it before the House so as to be as open and consultative as possible.

Mr. Cryer: While I am grateful to the Minister for her response, I suggest that when in future she wants to make an explanation of that sort, she should include it in the memorandum submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We did not have any idea of the reason she has given.

Mrs. Chalker: Given the number of explanatory memoranda that I am signing, I did not think that the hon. Gentleman would have wanted more from me. I shall ensure that they are as full as I can make them, keeping him up till even later hours considering such matters. I shall, so far as I am able, provide the fullest possible explanations.
A number of hon. Members expressed concern today about what they see as the loss of the spirit of Lomé. I hosted a visit during the past week by Dr. Bahane, the secretary-general of the ACP countries. He believes that


Lomé IV represents a significant step forward and acknowledges the important role that the United Kingdom has played in bringing that about—a subject to which shall return.
In this short debate, we had a rather one-sided view from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I have always seen the 1990s as an opportunity for Lomé countries. They can participate in 1992 and I have particularly argued with the European Commission that they should be helped to benefit from it. I believe that Lomé IV can help to stimulate growth for their products in the European Community market.
The 1990s provide an opportunity to conclude and implement GATT properly, and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley will recall my saying on 14 December how important a successful end to the GATT negotiations was for the ACP countries. But above all, we can build on the special ACP-EC partnership which has developed in implementing the wide-ranging and increased Lomé IV.
I said that Opposition Members had been characteristically negative in their remarks. That goes for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson). There was nothing half-hearted about the long and detailed de bates which led up to Lomé IV—the largest ever commitment of the EC countries, and rightly so, to the ACP countries. When I visit ACP countries and discuss the detail of i t with them, we talk about how they can better use EC assistance, and they talk about that with enthusiasm.
None of those ACP countries would recognise the image that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley painted of Lomé IV. I assure her that nothing is collapsing and that we are increasingly working together. That applies to the member states and the Commission, the Community and the international financial institutions, and the Community and the ACP countries.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) spoke about effectiveness, and my hon. Friend spoke of the need for donor co-ordination and the need for links between bilateral donors and EC delegates. Regarding effectiveness, the Commission is looking to the United Kingdom's knowledge and experience of aid planning to help it in the future programming of European development fund funds. It is also looking to us for evaluation methods of project proposals, and the new EDF rules will permit member states to evaluate effectiveness. Hon. Members will know that for a long time I have believed that to be necessary. I am glad to say that the Commission now has a new evaluation unit and that a much fuller use of evaluation work is planned.
It is also important that the Court of Auditors, which carries out annual reviews of aid implementation and makes recommendations for improving value for money, should be able to refer to such evaluation plans. That is why member states are considering the improvements suggested in the auditors' report for 1989, and that could prove valuable.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley spoke of the slow disbursement rate of EDF VI. The Commission is aware of the problem. We would not have allowed it not to be aware of that. The main sector for aid under Lomé III, as the hon. Lady will recall, is agriculture and rural development. Both are inevitably rather slow in disbursing parts of the programme. It is not justifiable to steer away from these identified priorities simply to speed up disbursement. However, measures must be taken to speed it up, and we

are encouraging that with the European Commission. The sectoral import programmes under the structural adjustment facility are fast disbursing and they will help to step up the disbursal rate of EDF VII. They will be able to give the balance of payments support that so many of those countries badly need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford asked about donor co-operation. He will probably be aware that British high commissioners and ambassadors in ACP countries are encouraged to call together ambassadors from Community countries, and frequently from other countries, to discuss with the EC delegates what they are doing and how they can reinforce programmes of economic reform and structural adjustment, health care and education, and the other matters that we most value in the programmes in which we are involved.
I am glad to say that co-operation is working rather better than it did a few years ago. Nevertheless, there is a long way to go, and one of the frequent topics of conversation when I meet the Commissioner and his senior staff is how to get better co-ordination on future projects between EC partners and other main donors and EC delegates. We shall set about that with great enthusiasm in the years ahead.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley implied that there was some secret about ACP debt and our discussions on the subject. I assure her that that is not so. When Commissioner Marin first presented his proposals to the Development Council on 5 November, I willingly undertook to consider them carefully. It is my view, and the view of other member states, that the proposals need a good deal of further work to ensure that the poorest countries benefit—exactly what the hon. Lady asked for—and that the current arrangement for dealing with debt are not undermined.
The poorest and most debt-distressed countries which are following economic reform programmes deserve the encouragement that we can give through the structural adjustment measures which are included in Lomé IV for the first time. Every donor country agrees that we must be sure that the proposals do not cut across the current international machinery for dealing with debt. No decisions have been taken. As I reported to the House after the Development Council meeting, consideration continues, and we intend to see that this is made to work.
Britain has forgiven official aid debt to the poorest in our aid programme, and we aim to view the Commission's proposals in exactly the same policy context of helping those countries to help themselves. The debt under Lorne conventions covered by the new debt proposal is about 3,900 million ecu over 50 years. The United Kingdom's share of that is estimated at about £500 million.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley referred several times to structural adjustment. She seemed to imply that the Community would be able to work independently of the World bank and the IMF. There is no merit in the European Community, the World bank and the IMF having competing policies. We should work together to reinforce each other's efforts in these countries. As the hon. Lady may know, the Bretton Woods institutions, with their special expertise, play a special role. That means that the Commission, like bilateral donors, should play a supporting role, and we hope that it will do that.


The EC decisions on debt followed consultation with individual ACP countries, so it has not been a matter of the Community going off on its own and not consulting.
The hon. Lady also referred to the lack of staff to implement Lomé IV. Expertise is gradually being built up in DG8. I fully accept that there are insufficient specialists in certain areas. That is why Britain has seconded environment specialists to the Commission to work in DG8 and link up with the environment directorate-general. We have also just seconded a United Kingdom economist to DG8, to deal particularly with structural adjustment, and other staff are going to build up exactly the work that has to be done under Lomé IV.
The United Kingdom is committed to a liberal stance on trade because we believe that to be to the benefit of all ACP countries. We have been leading the call for CAP reform. The solution to unfair Community exports in third countries is not to commit them to aid but to tackle the unfair export competition by the EC, and that is exactly what we are doing in GATT.
One hon. Member—the House will forgive me, but I do not remember who—was rather confused by the EC tropical products offer. That has been widely recognised as a good contribution to the needs of developing countries, but like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley I would have liked more trade concessions. We fought hard for greater trade concessions, but sadly not all my colleagues in the negotiations were as willing as I to see greater trade concessions to ACP countries. However, I must exonerate the Dutch from that blame, as they were extremely helpful in trying to open up more trading possibilities for the ACP countries.
This has been a short but good debate. We see the chances of 1992 for the Lomé countries as an opportunity. A single market of more than 320 million consumers, only

one external barrier and one set of standards, must make it easier for ACP countries to export to us. The benefits of going to the international trading system which are generated by the Community's new economic dynamism will be a major force for a general liberalisation. We shall go on pressing the Commission to take account of 1992, in all its programming of Lomé IV.
I will repeat something that I said briefly at the beginning about bananas—a very special commodity for our Caribbean friends. Our long-standing commitment to the traditional banana suppliers in the Caribbean will not be changed. We fought hard in the Lomé renegotiations to ensure that effective preferential access arrangements were maintained for the traditional suppliers. The commitments are enshrined in a protocol to the convention, and I assure the House that we shall uphold those commitments when we consider what arrangements should apply to bananas in the single market after 1992.
As I said earlier, the Commission has still to come forward with its proposals, but the arrangments must take account of our commitments to our Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers, of the trade policy considerations, the interests of consumers and the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market initiative.
We are committed to getting on with the job and to ensuring that Lomé IV is even more effective than Lomés I, II and III and the Yaoundé conventions before them. I am convinced that the Commission has the will. It may need a few good ideas from its member countries about how best to act, but together we can deliver a much better deal in the 1990s than we were able to achieve in the 1980s.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Optical Fibres

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. George Howarth: In this Adjournment debate, I represent only my constituents, the town of Prescot in which I live and the work force of and all those dependent on the BICC works there, which is of vital significance to the town. I do not speak for BICC when I say that, nor for British Telecom, Mercury, or any of the other commercial concerns which obviously have an interest in this matter.
The BICC company has been vital to the town of Prescot for the past 100 years. In the past few years, the company has shrunk as an employer, from employing about 10,000 people at its peak to under 2,000 now. Several weeks ago, the closure of the copper refinery in Prescot was announced—its timing is still open to discussion—and a further 230 jobs were lost.
I make those few introductory remarks about BICC because there is a problem. The development of optical fibre cable and the development and implementation of the broad band system offer considerable potential to the company. It is estimated that, if such developments were allowed to go ahead pretty quickly in this country, about 800 jobs could be created within the borough of Knowsley, part of which I have the honour to represent in the House. When one considers that my borough is in the top 10 constituencies for unemployment, which is not a statistic that I am boasting about, but a fact of life, those 800 jobs would certainly be most valuable.
Similarly, in the north-west of England, where the cold wind of recession is blowing and scarcely a day goes by without the loss of manufacturing capacity and jobs, it is estimated that about 4,000 jobs could be created as a result of such developments.
Naturally, the estimate which is most commonly used by commerical interests is that, taking into account the multiplier effect provided by any manufacturing industry—jobs rippling through into other parts of the economy—there is potential for about 30,000 jobs. That potential, nationally, in the north-west and within my constituency is all too plain and welcome in the context of an economy which has been shrinking drastically during the past few years.
However, there are constraints upon that development. The Minister is considering the duopoly review, commissioned by the Government to study all these matters. If they accept the duopoly review's recommendations, it will prevent the development of the broad band system in the United Kingdom, in particular by preventing British Telecom and Mercury—the two operators capable of producing a system of that kind—from carrying entertainment for between seven and 10 years. That is the profitable part of the operation, which would act as a spur to the development of home computers, video phones and so forth, so that would prevent the industry from taking off.
I do not decry the Japanese Government, Japan's industry or its people—far from it—but by contrast, in Japan, through the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Company, decisions have already been taken to invest £12 billion to create a broad band national network, which will put the company in a strong position to take

advantage of any developments that are then allowed, in seven to 10 years, as a result of the delays caused by the duopoly review.
I simply wish to urge the Government to consider the prospects involved in allowing British Telecom and Mercury to develop a broad band system, and, in particular, allowing them to carry out entertainment operations. It is possible that an industry in which we already have a technological leading edge, and in which we are now a world leader, will simply slip through our fingers, and the potential jobs in my constituency and in the nation as a whole will be lost.
In the 1988 Mountbatten memorial lecture, Sir William Barlow, the distinguished chairman of the BICC group of companies, said:
In so many scientific and technological enterprises, Britain has frequently led the world as inventors or in research and development—only to lose the final race in terms of commercial application and market exploitation.
We are on the threshold of a revolution in communications and we should grasp the opportunity to be a world leader.
That potential already exists—the potential for this country to move heavily and dramatically into the technological revolution. It is a matter of developing a formidable, highly technical communications network, and of Britain's getting back into the driving seat to deal with the technology and manufacturing of the 21st century. The opportunity must not be constrained for the next seven to 10 years: we must grasp it fervently now. Even if questions are posed about competition, let the existing companies get on with the job; and let us hope that, in seven to 10 years' time, the opportunity has not slipped through our fingers. It should be a matter of British national pride that we were there first, and that we are doing it.

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I congratulate the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on raising such an important subject. I was sorry to hear of the recent job losses at BICC; I hope that the plans that I hear are being discussed for development on an alternative site can bring some extra jobs and prosperity to his part of the world—assuming that the planning authorities consider them satisfactory.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman: over the next few years, the development of broad band networks and opto-electronic technologies will be important, and I hope that his constituency will benefit from that as the demand comes through: I million km of fibre highway are already in place for trunk calls, and more will be sold as needed. There will also be new opportunities for the suppliers. The use of fibre allows more signals to be sent along a given route. Broad band systems allowing television programmes to be sent by cable require either fibre optic capacity or thicker copper cables in the home.
The Government are keen to promote the right environment for those developments, so that British companies across all industries can benefit from them and gain an international competitive advantage. I think that Opposition Members and I can agree on that.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the duopoly review. I am sure that he will understand that I cannot predict the results of the Secretary of State's deliberations tonight; however, we stated in the document that British Telecom was already allowed to convey entertainment


services to the home as the agent of a cable company. BT has also been free to apply for cable franchises through a subsidiary, in its own right, on the same basis as any other applicant. BT is, however, now disposing of all its cable interests. Those matters will be covered when we present the findings of the review. We have been delighted by the range and quality of the representations received on those and other issues.
Although the hon. Gentleman and I can agree on the importance of cable networks, I do not think that I have always found myself in agreement with Opposition Members about the best ways to achieve that. Labour wants the Government to make BT install a national broad band grid.
The Labour party's document "Meet the Challenge—Make the Change" stated:
BT must be empowered and directed to undertake this major investment programme.
That seemed to be reaffirmed in Labour's latest industry document, published this week. But who should pay the taxpayer or BT's customers? Moreover, why should cable be laid before there is a need for it? What possible advantages are there in returning to a monopoly provider? The Labour party's plans have been costed at an additional £20,000 million—a very considerable sum.
We say that as people demand cable TV or video conferencing, so more fibre will be used to link trunk routes—eventually into homes or businesses. Informed estimates suggest that, under our policies, the United Kingdom will spend more than £60,000 million on the technology as demand builds up. It will be a huge and important investment. By adopting our approach, the United Kingdom has already become one of the most intensive users of optical fibre for communications in the world. We use more fibre for trunk communication than France or Germany—both considerably larger countries.
Cable television companies are using fibre increasingly for trunk circuits. It is also being installed in the premises of major users of telecommunications, such as those in the City and other business centres. In the centre of London, more than 1,300 buildings are directly connected by Mercury alone, and BT accounts for more. There are also local fibre networks in Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Reading, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
It does not yet pay to install fibre for smaller and residential customers, because the opto-electronic components needed to convert from optical to electronic signals are still expensive. The price of the components will doubtless come down, and as they come down, fibre to the home can become a reality if people want the sort of new services that fibre links can provide.
British Telecom has undertaken extensive research and development into fibre optics and opto-electronics—much of it in collaboration with leading United Kingdom companies. Last autumn, BT, GPT, and BICC started a two-year "field trial" of new fibre technologies in Bishop's Stortford, in which telephone calls, television pictures, text and data all travel over a single optical fibre cable. The trials are both technological and commercial. Their results will help decide when and if it will be commercial to offer such a service more widely.
The Government's role in encouraging such developments is threefold. First, we help to fund research, both in

the United Kingdom and on a European basis. There is the £800 million EC RACE programme, which I expect to be followed up shortly by RACE II.
Domestically, research is also supported under the LINK programme: in opto-electronics and in advanced semiconductor materials, vital for the components in any fibre network. That involves an additional £27 million of public money over a period of five years.
Secondly, the United Kingdom played a leading role in the establishment of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, which now undertakes most of the work in establishing standards in Europe, which can stimulate marketplace activity.
Thirdly, the United Kingdom's approach to new services in the market provides a great incentive. The success of the United Kingdom's liberal regime towards service provision has led many of our European partners to copy it. By allowing anyone with a service to test it in the market, we have enabled the United Kingdom to become the leading provider of value added network services of all types in Europe. As broad band technology develops, we shall be in a strong position to exploit what it can offer.
British Telecom and Mercury are not the only players. Cable operators already bring broad band network to the home and they do not offer television alone. They represent one of the best chances for effective competition to BT for residential phone links as well.
Some 135 cable franchises were awarded by the Cable Authority before its functions were incorporated into the ITC at the beginning of the year. It is still early days for most of the operators, but 30 of them are offering service to their customers, and many more have started to install their networks. Successful operations already provide services to more than one in five of the households they can reach. In the United States—a more mature market—penetration reaches one in two.
The next two or three years will be critical for the broad band cable industry. Cable operators make very heavy investments at the beginning of their lives, and they need to penetrate the market rapidly to get payback. If the operators stick to their plans, they will reach half of Britain's homes by the mid-1990s, and two thirds by the end of the century. They have the opportunity to bring advanced telecommunications to their customers on the back of the cable television market. Data transfer services are already being widely used by businesses, and there are niche markets for services such as video conferencing. There are plenty of other uses yet to be thought of.
The United Kingdom has the leading position in both the technology and the use of fibre optics and broad band services, and undoubtedly will be amongst the pioneers of those new uses. British Telecom and Mercury have already switched to fibre for almost all their trunk cable network. Many individual large customers now have fibre to their premises. It may well be only a question of time before it will be economic for British Telecom, Mercury and their competitors, such as the cable companies, to supply all customers.
But it must be an economic decision—not a Government command. Only in that way will customers get in service a broad band system they want, rather than a speculative white elephant at someone else's expense. In


they way, Britain is likely to be in the lead and is likely to provide a good market for fibre optics and cable technology.
I agree with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North, who has raised this vital issue, that the development of

these services is necessary. I believe that the Government are pursuing policies that will definitely have that effect, and that we are in the lead in western Europe.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.